Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Water Supplies (Reorganisation)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received about the proposed reorganisation of water supplies.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): In the last year we have received about 4,000 letters, of which roughly one-third have been comments on consultation papers, and one third have been about canals.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dismay in the Midlands about a water undertaking which will stretch from Bristol to Grimsby, and is this not centralisation finally gone mad? Will the Minister confirm rumours that the Secretary of State is not as committed to these huge units of administration as some of his predecessors on both sides of the House in the past?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend, like his predecessor, is committed to sensible reorganisation in the interests of the nation as a whole. I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind when he speaks of an authority stretching from Bristol to Grimsby, but the House will have an opportunity to debate this at the appropriate time.

Mr. John Wells: Will the Minister say which of the letters sent to my hon. Friend merely forwarded letters from the Inland Waterways Association?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that we had about 750 letters from Members of Par-

liament, of which about 700 enclosed literature from the Inland Waterways Association.

Mr. Denis Howell: This large number of letters shows a welcome interest in the subject of water reorganisation, although many of them were from bodies which are perturbed about it. Will the Minister undertake to issue a White Paper setting out the Government's conclusions about these representations as well as the nature of the representations, and enable the House to debate the matter before the Bill is introduced either here or in the House of Lords?

Mr. Griffiths: We are at the moment preparing a document which will provide hon. Members with the fullest information about the consultations that have taken place and the representations that have been received. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Allotments

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Local Government Act to make provision for allotments.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on 15th November, the Government intend to introduce in due course a separate measure to bring the law on allotments up to date.—[Vol. 846, c. 115.]

Mr. Cordle: In my constituency there are hundreds of people who derive a great deal of pleasure from their allotments and they keep fit and active while tending them. Under the local government reorganisation there is no provision for the administration or upkeep of allotments. Does this activity not strongly merit encouragement, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

Mr. Page: There is provision, because where a district has a rural parish the allotments will remain under the control of the parish. Elsewhere they will come under the control of the district. The law will remain as it is until we bring forward the reform, the purpose of which is to relieve local authorities of control from Whitehall in this respect.

Housing

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give the number of council houses started in the United Kingdom in the first three quarters of 1972, 1971, 1970 and 1969, respectively.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): During the first nine months of this year, 81,000 dwellings were started for local authorities. The corresponding figures for 1971, 1970 and 1969 were 93,000, 105,000 and 123,000 respectively.

Mr. Allaun: What is the Minister doing, therefore, to reverse this disastrous fall to the lowest level in 11 years? Does he accept that we need more council houses and not fewer, because most working class families are dependent upon them, since they cannot afford to buy at present prices?

Mr. Channon: As I told the House the last time this subject was debated, no restrictions are placed on local authorities who wished to build council houses. The basic point was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in the debate on housing. There are no restrictions, and I hope that those who need council houses in their areas will put forward proposals.

Mr. Allason: Is not the important point the total number of houses built, and has the Minister seen the call for an increase in the supply of building land so that the house-building industry can build 10 per cent, more houses next year than they have done this year?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree. It is essential to have an adequate supply of building land. It is extremely important that we should be able to get as many private sector houses started as possible, as there is such an enormous demand.

Mr. Crosland: The House will have some sympathy with the Minister and with the Secretary of State, because their two predecessors got out just in time and left them very badly in the lurch. I wish to put two questions, in view of all the optimistic statements made from the Dispatch Box in the last two years. Is it not a unique achievement to preside at the same time over the biggest inflation

of house prices ever known and the lowest rate of completions for 10 years? Will the Minister accept that we have reached the point at which the Government must announce what their housing policy is? It is not enough to have the totally discredited Housing Finance Act. We want to know their policy for increasing the supply of houses.

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with what he has said. The Housing Finance Act is widely recognised by people both inside and outside the House as being one of the major reforms of housing that has taken place this century. The House must recognise that in the first ten months of this year public and private sector starts together are up 8 per cent. on the same period in 1971.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Do the figures include Northern Ireland? If not, will my hon. Friend tell us about the rate of building in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Channon: I rather hoped that I had left Northern Ireland behind me for the moment.

Mr. John D. Grant: Do not the figures that the Minister has just given make a sick joke of the boasts of Ministers that the slums will speedily be cleared—a sick joke at the expense of those who are in need of new homes?

Mr. Channon: No. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The great improvement shown by the National House Conditions Survey shows that that is by no means the situation. The progress that is being made with the improvement of our older houses and slum clearance is extremely encouraging.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities about the need to build houses to rent to applicants on their waiting list.

The Under-Secrctary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): No, Sir; local authorities are well aware of the duty which Parliament has laid on them to consider local housing conditions and the need to provide housing accommodation to meet local needs.

Mrs. Short: When will the Front Bench accept responsibility for the shocking state we have arrived at with housing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the first 10 months of this year only 107,000 houses were built by local authorities? When his hon. Friend says that in the first 10 months of this year there have been more starts, he is wrong, because the number is 105,000, which is fewer. What will happen next year? Is the Minister further aware that of all the large building firms engaged in system building for local authorities—building houses and flats by large panel methods —only one is still engaged on housing? What does he intend to do about this?

Mr. Eyre: I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the situation. It is for the local authority, assessing its needs, to develop the housing policy necessary for its own locality. No constraints or restraints are imposed by this Government, unlike the previous Government, on local authority building.

Mr. James Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need to issue a circular asking housing departments thoroughly to investigate their housing lists with a view to six-monthly updating, as many waiting lists are not factual and do not reflect actual housing needs.

Mr. Eyre: Waiting lists can help local authorities in assessing needs, but they are of qualified value, because some local authorities impose residential qualifications and others do not, some people find accommodation or move away without taking their names off the waiting list, and sometimes people are registered on more than one list.

Mr. Freeson: But if the hon. Gentleman believes that there are no constraints on local authorities' action in providing fresh housing, why did the Department in one of its recent circulars ask local authorities to inform the Minister of any such constraints that might exist?

Mr. Eyre: Because we seek to be as helpful as possible to local authorities, though like the hon. Lady, we sometimes find it difficult to understand why they do not get on with housing programmes. The finance and all that is necessary is available to local authorities in areas of need.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is sub-standard; and how this compares with the national average for the other regions.

Mr. Eyre: Separate figures for the Yorkshire and Humberside Region are not available.
The National House Condition Survey indicated that 19 per cent. of the houses in the North of England as a whole were without one or more basic amenity. This compares with 16·8 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.

Mr. Duffy: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture that he projects to the House for the north of England will undoubtedly sadly be reflected in the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Can he any longer depend for relief of the situation on local authority building programmes, no matter how well intentioned? Will he look again at the improvement grant scheme? How far does the hon. Gentleman think its provisions are being devalued by the soaring costs of the last two years? How far is uptake restricted by the capacity of the building industry?

Mr. Eyre: Increased costs have not caused any falling away in effective grant. The average figures show that great progress is being made in this respect. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the problems in this area, but the recently increased grant of 75 per cent. in development and intermediate areas has stepped up the rate at which the arrears in those areas are being made up.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Times Supplement article yesterday on Bradford, by Denys Thornton, in which he said that improvement schemes had solved the housing problem for the city, which is typical of the West Riding of Yorkshire? The City of Bradford has the best record for general improvement areas of any in the country.

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this article, which was very encouraging and showed that Bradford, by local vigour, had taken advantage of the system of Government grants and was moving rapidly towards solving its housing problem.

Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Government have repeatedly pledged that all slums would be cleared by 1980? Is it not clear from the information already known generally, and from that supplied this afternoon about the North of England, that at the present rate of progress slum clearance will be achieved not by 1980 but by 1990?

Mr. Eyre: I think that the hon. Gentleman is unduly pessimistic, because considerable progress is being made in slum clearance throughout the north and other parts of England, and this will be stimulated by the extra subsidy available under the Housing Finance Act 1972.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will send a circular to local authorities designed to increase accommodation provided for single persons.

Mr. Eyre: It is for each local authority to decide what the particular housing needs of its area are and to consider what provision should be made to meet those needs.

Mr. Dormand: That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for single persons to obtain suitable accommodation? I know that this type of accommodation entails increased costs, but does not the Minister agree that that is a totally inadequate reason for not providing sufficient accommodation of that kind? Will he bring more pressure to bear upon local authorities to increase the number of units of such accommodation?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the cost of providing self-contained single-person dwellings to Parker Morris standards will be taken into account in assessing the entitlement of local authorities, and housing associations—which can play an important part in this matter—to the new subsidies introduced by the Housing Finance Act 1972. The matter rests with local authorities to provide the initiative to cater for this need.

Miss Fooks: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter? Will he take into account the fact that among the group of single people there are somewhat inadequate people, very often

middle-aged single women, who find it very hard to keep their heads above water? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, as I believe there is a serious need here which is not at present being met?

Mr. Eyre: Yes. My hon. Friend would not expect me to recant one word of what I said earlier about the Housing Finance Act 1972, but I certainly take her point with regard to categories of single people. When the element of care is present the prime responsibility rests with the Department of Health and Social Security, but we are already in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and we intend to pursue this matter.

Mr. Tinn: I do not wish in any way to reduce the responsibilities of the local authorities in this matter, but will the Minister, perhaps in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, at least undertake some kind of survey to ascertain what kind of provision is made? To say the least, it is probable that there are great variations in provisions by local authorities.

Mr. Eyre: With regard to local needs it must be for the local authority to make this study. But in October last my Department published a design bulletin entitled "Housing for Single People", for general information. That bulletin was the first of a series of three, which will deal with a housing project for single working people under retirement age which was designed by a department of the Leicester City Council. It is believed that this publication and the two that will follow will be very helpful to local authorities in terms of design.

Rents

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council house tenants are paying more rent as a result of the introduction of the Housing Finance Act.

Mr. Channon: This information is not available, since rents payable depend on the rebates granted to tenants.

Mr. Mitchell: Why is the information not available? Is the Minister aware


that in Southampton 70 per cent. of the tenants are paying more? Does he expect that figure to be above or below the national average?

Mr. Channon: I cannot say more than I said in my original reply. As the rents payable depend upon the rebates granted, it is not possible for me to give a meaningful national answer to that question.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants in England and Wales are currently on rent strike following the implementation of rent increases under the Housing Finance Act.

Mr. Channon: This information is not available.

Mr. Meacher: Is not that in itself a disgrace? I can certainly tell the Minister that at least 5,000 tenants in my own constituency alone are on strike—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tell the Minister things at Question Time.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the simple basic facts which are directly relevant to his own responsibilities? Is not he ashamed that by forcing up the rents of 5 million council tenants during a so-called prices and wages freeze he has produced a national rent strike? What else does he expect when he is pushing up rent by 7 per cent. a year, as he himself admits, while owner-occupiers are getting untaxed capital gains of 35 per cent.? Is not that the epitome of the unfair society? When will he reverse the policy or resign?

Mr. Channon: I have been in my present office for only three weeks, and I had not planned to resign yet. We have already debated all the debating points many times in the House. As regards the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, what information I have from some of the authorities is that the number of tenants on rent strike is small, and reducing.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) came to my constituency to address a widely-publicised meeting to stir up feeling about

the Housing Finance Act, and that out of 7,500 council tenants 31 people turned up, 12 of whom were members of the local Labour Party and five of whom were Conservative observers?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that by the end of the meeting they were all Conservative observers.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that an 86-year-old war-disabled widower in my constituency has just had his rent rebate reduced from £1·5 to 69p, thus imposing on him a rent increase, because the disregards in the Government's national rent rebate scheme are less generous than those of a progressive local authority like my own? Will he give the local authorities full freedom of action to be generous to those people who are being hard hit by the Government's policy?

Mr. Channon: Local authorities have a tolerance in these matters—[Interruption]—I believe that that tolerance was designed specifically to meet the sort of case that the right hon. Lady has in mind. I very much hope she will take the matter up with her local authority.

Environmental Pollution (Royal Commission Report)

Mr. Dalyeil: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to make a statement on the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden.)— [Vol. 847, c.380.]

Mr. Dalyell: Which of the Ashby recommendations are the Government not accepting, and why?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman will read the four columns of HANSARD which contain the detailed reply which I gave yesterday, he will know the answer to his question. The short position is that my right hon. Friend has been able to accept almost all the Royal Commission's recommendations in full. There are a few on which we have made marginal comments—

Mr. Dalyell: These are the few I asked about.

Mr. Griffiths: One or two. The hon. Gentleman needs to look up what I said yesterday before he asks ignorant questions.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not the Minister agree that the Government should give time for a debate on environmental pollution as soon as possible?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been three Adjournment debates on different aspects of environmental pollution, including one on the last Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. In view of the practice of giving written replies to parliamentary Questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remark does not seem to accord with the convention. "Unsatisfactory" is the only epithet which can be applied.

A66 (West Cumberiand-Penrith)

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce a decision on the A66 West Cumberiand-Penrith trunk road proposals.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29th November in answer to a similar Question.—[Vol. 847, c. 140.]

Dr. Cunningham: Does not the Minister agree that the improvement of the A66 trunk road from the M6 to West Cumberland is crucial to any attempt by the Government to encourage industrial development in that area? Does not he also agree that the inordinate delay since the closure of the public inquiry is inexcusable, and will he now get off his backside and announce his decision?

Mr. Speed: I agree with the first part of the question but reject utterly the second part. The public inquiry took 32 days and involved many environmental issues. There were thousands of objectors and objections to be considered. The result will be known in the very near future.

Railways

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has now received from British Rail about the future size of the railway network; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I have nothing to add to my reply given to the hon. Member on 8th November.—[Vol. 845, c. 999.]

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister realise that the House is waiting with bated breath for the next exciting episode on who pinched the report from the Department and give it to the Sunday Times? Will the Minister give an undertaking that any British Rail report that includes an increase in the size of the railway network will be fully considered by him without bias in any shape or form?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, of course; I gladly give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Gentleman. Any report for which I have asked from British Rail will certainly be considered without bias. If I may say so, I enjoy the spectacle of the hon. Gentleman's waiting for anything with bated breath.

Mr. Gardner: When my right hon. Friend considers the possibility of having to reduce railway traffic if it becomes necessary, will he please bear in mind the growing perils to those who have to use main roads like the M1 and M6—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And Whitehall!

Mr. Gardner: —and that these perils are likely to increase if the railway service is diminished without the most careful thought?

Mr. Peyton: I have no desire to reduce the volume of rail traffic.

Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister realise that the leakage of the terms of the report has led to widespread concern about the future of many railway services and about the manner in which the leak is being investigated? Will he make a positive statement to allay the widespread concern and to indicate that Government


thinking is that the vialibilty of the railways should be sustained by further Government support rather than by a reduction of services, which is a suggestion that is being canvassed?

Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman realises, the Government have given considerable and generous support to the railways. We have at some length gone into the matter of the document which got out. I can only repeat that in a comprehensive examination of the railway system it is not unwise for all kinds of alternatives to be thoroughly examined. The fact that one got out does not in any way justify some of the conclusions that were drawn from it by many people who, I suspect, wish to stir up anxieties.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many railway lines there are in Wales that are grant-aided under the Transport Act where the grant terminates on 31st December, 1972.

Mr. Peyton: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1st December—[Vol. 847. c. 261–2.]

Mr. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is a great deal of concern in Wales for the future of these 16 railway lines? Would he not further agree that there is need for an early and clear statement that these lines will be retained, particularly since, when his party was last in Government, it closed 800 miles of railway line in the Principality.

Mr. Peyton: Repeated statements that lines will be kept open would probably not be necessary except, perhaps, for the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman persists in asking. Since he challenges me on the question of closures, I must remind him that whereas, rightly or wrongly, the Administration that he supported closed 2,300 miles of railway lines in six years, since this Government have been in office 200 mile have been closed.

Land Use Transportation Study

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will widen the scope of the Land Use Transportation Study being undertaken by his Department jointly with the Bristol City Coun-

cil to include the whole of the new Avon county area.

Mr. Peyton: The study will concentrate initially on Bristol and its neighbourhood but later work will cover the whole of the new Avon County.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people in Bristol who feel that the transportation study is perhaps being produced by the Department more as a sop to people like me who ask awkward questions than as a genuine attempt, as the Tyne-Wear and Merseyside studies were, to arrive at a long-term answer to the many problems, which do not only involve Bristol? Does he agree that it does not make sense to restrict the area of the study to a tight little circle around the city?

Mr. Peyton: It is not the intention that the study should be so restricted. The representation is more or less designed to ensure that it will not be. I assure my hon. Friend that I have far more desire to learn from him than to present him with sops.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his best offices to make sure that the study is produced as quickly as possible, because, whether it is widened or not, it is essential that it be produced quickly, as the growing uncertainty and unease throughout Bristol will continue until the problem is sorted out properly.

Mr. Peyton: I appreciate the extent of feeling in the area and the complexity of the problem. I shall do my best to see that the study is completed as soon as possible, but I want it to be comprehensive.

Mr. Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the arguments about the county of Avon it was consistently stated by his Department that Bristol was a centre for a larger area to include the county? It therefore seems strange that a transportation study can be made exclusively for the city of Bristol. Will it include the future of Lulsgate airport?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend will perhaps do me the favour of reading my reply. I have no intention that the study should be confined to the city of Bristol. I have said that it will certainly cover


the whole of the new county of Avon, and will if necessary go wider than that.

Lorries

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lorries examined by his inspectors during the last 12 months were found to be overweight; and what this was as a percentage of all lorries examined.

Mr. Peyton: The figure was 3,662, representing 2 per cent. of all checked, in 12 months to the end of September.

Mr. Clark: Will the Minister make it clear to the House and the country that each one of those vehicles is unsafe and a potential killer, and will he do something about trying to increase his inspection?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I have done something to increase the inspection and to improve enforcement. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Overloading is a menace.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has the Minister ever tried weighing an articulated lorry, axle by axle, on a public weighbridge which is more suited to a wheelbarrow? Does not he agree that one of the main answers to the problem is more, bigger and better public weighbridges?

Mr. Peyton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is, "Yes, Sir". The answer to the first part of his question is, "No, Sir; I have not tried".

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations of the departmental working party on the parking of lorries.

Mr. Peyton: Nineteen sites have been identified for acquisition and development.

Mr. Horam: When will we actually see some of these lorry parks built and operating?

Mr. Peyton: It takes a little time; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman please try to help me by dealing with the lorries that are parked on the pavement outside the front doors of my constituents so that they cannot get

in their street doors, and so that ambulances and fire appliances cannot get to and from fires and accidents? The police will not do something, nor will his Department, yet if I were to blow my top, something might be done. The Prime Minister does not have these lorries parked in Downing Street.

Mr. Peyton: The prospect of the hon. Member's blowing his top is truly terrifying. Hungry though I am for opportunities to please the hon. Member I have to tell him, with great disappointment, that the last Government passed the responsibility for traffic management in Greater London to the Greater London Council—so the power to please the hon. Gentleman is temporarily taken from me.

Giant Tankers (Port Facilities)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken regarding port facilities for tankers of one million tons deadweight.

Mr. Peyton: The National Ports Council said in its annual report for 1969 that facilities could be provided without unreasonable expense if the need arose.

Mr. Douglas: If ships are to be developed to that size, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why we should spend millions of pounds of public money developing port facilities at Maplin and an adjacent airport, including expenditure by the country of millions of pounds on dredging, when we have facilities in Scotland that do not need dredging to cater for that type of vessel?

Mr. Peyton: I am very conscious of the potential in Scotland, to which the hon. Gentleman has properly drawn attention, but I do not think that that should necessarily prejudice or render unnecessary the development of Maplin.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great environmental dangers of allowing super-tankers through the Channel to discharge at Maplin? Will he use to the full the deep-water facilities existing on the west coast of the British Isles?

Mr. Peyton: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is


that I certainly wish to see the deep-water facilities on the west coast used to the full. The first part of his question is really one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Motorways (Speed Limits)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now consider raising the 70 miles per hour speed limit on three-lane motorways.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of bunching at 70 mph on the motorways, the safety record in those countries with no speed limit, the effect on the motor industry of this restrictive limit, and the fact that the law is increasingly ignored by people in public life, including some of his ministerial colleagues?

Mr. Peyton: I have considered all the factors to which the hon. Gentleman so graciously referred, and I have been unable to find any grounds for changing my mind.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does not the Minister agree that the figures supplied to him by his officers in the Department show that the density of traffic on some of the motorways is now so great that many people are driven to question whether 70 mph is a safe limit? Instead of his being persuaded to raise the limit, there is a strong case for lowering it, in the extremely dangerous conditions now existing on our motorways, particularly in the North of England, where I happen to live.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that it is not due to the hon. Gentleman's influence. What he says is true. There are occasions and places on the motorways where the traffic is far too dense for 70 mph to be safe. That is, of course, the maximum speed, and not the speed at which people are obliged to travel.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now carried out an investigation into the allocation of discretionary improvement grants to Government Ministers.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have no evidence of any departure from the appropriate procedures by any Government Ministers.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Tory Party Chairman and Secretary of State for Defence received a £7,200 discretionary improvement grant from Chelsea and Kensington Council on properties that were bought for £90,000 which the noble Lord subsequently converted to six properties with the help of this grant and sold for £270,000? Will the Minister accept that the name of the game is not "improvement", as his predecessor used to say, but "double your money"?

Mr. Rippon: I saw certain Press reports, and I saw the statement that was issued by solicitors for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence making it clear that he had no personal financial interest whatsoever in this matter, and I have no reason to suppose that the appropriate procedures were not followed.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with his investigations into the abuses of house improvement grants.

Mr. Rippon: My survey of the social implications of house improvement in Inner London is making good progress.

Mr. Hamilton: Does it include an investigation into the activity of two senior Ministers—the Secretary of State for Defence, and the former Minister for Housing and Construction in his activities in Southwark? The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly recollected, in answer to Question No. 15, the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence's solicitor, which alleged that the trustees were acting on behalf of the Secretary of State's family without his knowledge—although the profits obtaining from the transaction in Ovington Square were more than £100,000. If the Minister expects the House and the country to believe his right hon. Friend's assertion that he knew nothing about it he had better think again. The letters that I have received show that the public is only too well aware of the racket that is now going on between Ministers and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Allaun: He should resign.

Mr. Rippon: I believe my right hon. Friend, and I believe that other people will believe him. If the hon. Member does not believe him, he must make allegations elsewhere—perhaps outside the House. I have no evidence at all that other than the appropriate procedures have been used in all these cases.

Mr. Winterton: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider making stronger representations to local authorities urging them to be a little more liberal with their descretionary improvement grants, so that areas which they are at present declaring redevelopment areas and which contain many sound houses could be declared improvement areas and many excellent houses retained for the future?

Mr. Rippon: These, of course, are very much matters for the discretion of the local authorities.
I am glad that they have used their discretion very widely. Since I took office in this Department I have looked into the whole policy of improvement grants. I believe that these grants and their extension have made an enormous contribution to providing better housing for many people who otherwise would not have had it.

Mr. Stallard: Will the Secretary of State accept that the use of these improvement grants, certainly in many Inner London boroughs, has resulted in deterioration and loss of rented accommodation, particularly in the family sector? Does he not accept that abuses and harassment take place, in many cases long before the actual grant application is made? Will he not do as his hon. Friend says but instead ask local authorities to be a little more discreet in their application of these grants? Will he try to do something to stop harassment, for instance, by reviewing the existing laws relating to it, so that cases can be brought against landlords and speculators who indulge in this kind of action?

Mr. Rippon: There should certainly not be harassment and, as I said in answer to Questions on 15th November, tenants' rights are not affected in any way. Indeed, we want to take the maximum action possible to ensure that tenants know their rights. It is sad that more private rented accommodation at fair

rents is not available to people, but the party opposite has done as much harm as anyone in preventing its being made available.

Caravan Sites

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make the designation order under Section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, the application for which he has received from the Manchester City Council.

Mr. Page: I cannot yet add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 21st November in answer to a similar Question.— [Vol. 846, c. 365.]

Mr. Morris: What possible justification is there for a delay of 14 months in making this designation order? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ratepayers of Manchester have spent £31,500 on providing a caravan site under the 1968 Act, yet my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) are still plagued with problems arising from the indiscriminate parking of caravans in close proximity to their homes?

Mr. Page: Manchester Corporation has fulfilled its statutory duty, but it is necessary to consider this over a wider area. The city has to provide only 15 sites. Counties have to provide for all gipsies resorting to their area, and it is important to ensure that when one squeezes the balloon in one place it does not burst in another.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the urgency of the situation arises from the Blackwin Street area in my constituency where, over a period of months, the inhabitants have been terrorised, their houses robbed of lead, and they have had to put up with intolerably insanitary conditions on the slum clearance site adjacent? They cannot go on putting up with these conditions which are caused not by gipsies but by tinkers? The designating order must be granted with urgency.

Mr. Page: This must be considered over a wider area. We must see that the city is not decanting these people into the area of its neighbours.

Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the noble Lord Lord Sandford promised early consideration after the debate on 14th November, and that in the meantime people living in my constituency are suffering a great deal from the fact that they are in proposed clearance areas and are also suffering threats, abuse and damage from these itinerants? Will he do something urgently about it?

Mr. Page: Consultations are going on. I realise that there is a balance to be struck, but the solution is for all authorities to carry out their statutory duty and make the provision.

Newport (Visit)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Newport.

Mr. Rippon: I have at present no plans to do so but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes shortly to visit the ports of South Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that I wrote to the Minister for Transport Industries five weeks ago about the serious situation developing among the ports of the Severn Estuary? Does he further appreciate that it was that Minister who made the decision to authorise the Port of Bristol expansion that is causing all these difficulties? Will he still further appreciate that his promises of no poaching of trade have been valueless? Will he therefore come to Newport and other South Wales ports to explain the situation?

Mr. Rippon: I have read the report of the Adjournment debate which took place on 28th November. It showed that Labour and Conservative Members from the Bristol Channel area had comments to make on the hon. Gentleman's observations. I have been able to see how successful the ports in South Wales—including Newport and Port Talbot—are in dealing with the competition which they have inevitably to face. It is much more encouraging than the hon. Gentleman would lead the House and the country to believe.

Sub-aqua Divers (Safety)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if

he will strengthen the safety measures for sub-aqua divers.

Mr. Griffiths: I have no evidence to suggest that the safety guidance issued by the British Sub-Aqua Club to its members is inadequate.

Mr. Reed: Bearing in mind that this is a rapidly growing sport, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient decompression chambers available to meet the need?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that not only on the sporting side but also because of oil exploration in the North Sea, many more people are going in for diving, and also that the larger cylinders tempt them to stay deeper for longer. There is a need for more decompression chambers. The Royal Navy provides a 24-hour cover, with helicopters, as needed, to take people to decompression.

Planning Applications and Appeals

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current average time between the lodging of an appeal against a planning decision, the hearing of that appeal and a decision by him; and how these times compare with two years ago.

Mr. Rippon: The current average time between the lodging of a planning appeal and the decision is 51 weeks where I decide the appeals and 36 weeks where the appeal is decided by an inspector— about 31 weeks of which represents the time awaiting the local inquiry. Comparable figures two years ago, when the volume of appeals was about 40 per cent, less than now, were 43 weeks, 29 weeks and 24 weeks respectively.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that the number of planning applications going to local planning authorities has sharply increased in the last year to almost 500,000, and that more than four-fifths are permitted, but would my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless agree that those figures cause great concern? Would not he further agree that in the minds of the public the administration for dealing with appeals will never be considered satisfactory until the average time between the lodging of an appeal and the decision of the Minister is reduced to the statutory period that a local planning


authority has to deal with any application, namely, two months?

Mr. Rippon: Those figures give me no cause for satisfaction. I think it was recognised many months ago—and my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took action—that we needed more inspectors. They are now coming forward. One always has to bear in mind that in making planning appeals people put in a lot of time and effort in putting forward their proposals. They have to be considered very carefully. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why does it take the Secretary of State 15 weeks longer to decide an appeal than his inspectors?

Mr. Rippon: Many of the appeals which are decided by me are the more complicated ones. Inevitably, therefore, the process of considering them is longer. I hope that more appeals will in future go straight to inspectors. That should follow from the new regulations which have just been laid before the House. The figure is now 60 per cent., and I hope that it will be about 75 per cent. or 80 per cent.

Departmental Co-operation

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist for co-operation between his Department and the Scottish Office in matters concerning the environment.

Mr. Rippon: There are many different arrangements for inter-departmental cooperation. My Department and that of my right hon. Friend use them as appropriate.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a great need for a very clear statement about the coordination between his Department and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, since in Scotland there is great concern about the pollution of the environment, for example by North Sea oil? Can he give a clear statement on the administrative functions of both Departments, so that we can know where we are in this question of the preservation of the environment?

Mr. Rippon: The consultation goes on at every level from Cabinet Committees

down to ordinary inter-departmental consultations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scots do not change just because they get into Government. It would give him the greatest possible satisfaction if he knew of the number of occasions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues says, "I think that the committee should know about the position in Scotland."

Driving Licences (Eyesight Testing)

Mr. Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision will be included for eyesight testing in his proposal to issue driving licences for life.

Mr. Peyton: I do not propose any changes.

Mr. Huckfield: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the letter that he has had from the British School of Motoring about the 1,452 people whose eyesight they tested during the Motor Show recently? Does he realise that, of those tested, 44 per cent. had some kind of defect, 19 per cent. were a definite potential hazard on the road, 20 had vision only in one eye and ten could not even see a number plate at ten yards? Is he honestly proposing to give these people driving licences for life?

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I should point out first that it is an offence to drive on the roads with defective eyesight. Secondly, this matter has been looked at frequently and, as far as I know, no one has yet felt justified in imposing on the motorist a rather tiresome need to go through tests which would, in their result, be unrewarding.

National Parks (Mineral Deposits)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he will apply when considering applications to exploit mineral deposits in national parks.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. and learned Friend considers each case on its own merits, but a very strong case indeed is needed to justify new mineral workings in national parks.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend pay attention to the criteria laid down


by the Minister for Town and Country Planning in 1949 in respect of this matter, which said that exploitation must be absolutely necessary in the public interest, and that it must also be clear that no alternative source of supply is available?

Mr. Page: Having regard to the fact that some 16 of every 100 acres of land in England is either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, it is not surprising that many important minerals are under national parks. It is manifestly right to require strong justification for those workings, but it is also right that each case should be tested on its merits.

Mr. David Clark: What co-ordinating machinery has the Minister established between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the implications of the Industry Act 1972, which would allow a 40 per cent. grant to be given for mining operations in many of our national parks?

Mr. Page: That is another question, which the hon. Gentleman may table.

Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people feel that no minerals, apart from coal, should be mined here if they can be obtained anywhere else in the world?

Mr. Page: That may be, but we have recently been able to have an environmental success in dealing with the extraction, for example, of china clay on Lee Moor, where the company has undertaken to make environmental improvements and to do landscaping, which will greatly benefit the whole district.

Speculative Office Development (Central London)

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in considering applications for office development permits for speculative developments in central London.

Mr. Channon: Applications for speculative office developments in central London are generally acceptable if they provide for the replacement of obsolescent premises by new buildings offering roughly the same amount of accommodation; otherwise speculative develop-

ments are allowed only if substantial public advantages can be identified.

Mr. Grant: In the light of that reply, will the Minister say how he can publicly justify the approval of a permit for a £20 million speculative development in Shoe Lane, just off Fleet Street, for Capital and County Properties, for no particular tenant? I think that the Minister knows the chairman of the company well enough. Is not this just another rather scandalous example of pandering to profiteers?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman has a specfic case in mind, perhaps he will table a Question upon it.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the time has come to switch the emphasis of development in central London away from office building and towards the provision of more residential property? Now that my hon. Friend has resumed his interest in housing affairs, I hope that we shall see a decisive change in that direction.

Mr. Channon: I certainly note my hon. Friends views, which he has expressed to me very forcibly on many occasions.

Mr. Crosland: The Opposition will want to pursue the question of speculative office development permits at greater length on another occasion. However, may I put this question in a wider context? Is it not the case that the report of the Layfield Inquiry on the Greater London Development Plan is required to say something about office strategy in central London? Can the Minister say whether that report has been received? Above all, can he assure the House that, contrary to recent Press reports, when he has the report he will publish it for public discussion before the Government come to a conclusion on it?

Mr. Channon: As the right hon. Gentleman will have seen, there is a specific Question on that matter later on the Order Paper.

London Housing Action Group

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the London boroughs Action Group on London Housing is now visiting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what London boroughs have been visited by the London Housing Action Group since 15th November 1972; and whether he is now in a position to say when it will report.

Mr. Eyre: In addition to the authorities listed in my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) on 15th November, the action group has now visited Havering. But it is still too early to say when the action group will be reporting its discussions.— [Vol. 846, c. 117.]

Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he fully aware of the appalling housing problems that inner London boroughs are facing and of the complete lack of willingness on the part of certain outer boroughs to help in any way? Although the outer boroughs have housing land available for housing development, they are selling it off to private developers. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the report is presented, the action group's terms are sufficiently wide for recommendations to be made which would call for the Government to take action against such authorities?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the action group will report in detail in due course after its series of visits has been completed, but the action group includes highly experienced and respected councillors and aldermen, from both major parties, and they are having discussions with all the London boroughs to secure maximum cooperation on agreed measures to help to deal with London problems.

Mr. Leonard: As the action group has visited the borough of Havering, can the Minister assure the House that he will give the fullest backing to the intention of Havering to provide housing for rent in the Emerson Park area, which intention is being strongly resisted by members of the Conservative Party in the borough?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the total picture of London that must concern me, and is my responsibility. I am not prepared to discuss individual boroughs or individual circumstances in detail.

Mr. Freeson: This action group, which was set up with a great fanfare of trumpets by the Department one-and-a-half to two years ago, has reported once already. The Minister says that it is circulating and discussing things with the boroughs. Will he tell the House where one additional acre of land has been produced in the outer London area as a result of its activities? If not, when may we expect to see such land made available for municipal housing to help inner London?

Mr. Eyre: I hope that Opposition Members will not damage the very good prospect that arises from the good work which is being done by the action group. The land availability survey showed that large quantities of extra land have been found in London and, therefore, produced help in dealing with the serious London problems. There are a number of ways in which co-operation and help can be given, and examples of that help are coming forward as a result of the visits.

Motoring Laws (Publicity)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to oblige garage owners to display prominently on their forecourts leaflets and/or notices supplied by his Department, announcing and explaining new laws and regulations pertaining to the motorist as they become applicable.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that new driving regulations are not widely enough publicised, with the result that they are often contravened by motorists before they even know of their existence? The one place to which all motorists have to go is their garage. Would that not be the most effective place to publicise new regulations?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept the validity of my hon. Friend's general point. I will certainly look at means of making the information more readily available to the public. But the idea that motorists are likely to be lured from their cars to read pamphlets published by my Department and exhibited on garage forecourts is a little far fetched.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend look at the content of the pamphlets published by his Department? When, for instance, will there be a new Highway Code? When will he re-edit the Driver's Manual? Is there yet any comprehensive summary of the regulations which a driver has to comply with?

Mr. Peyton: That admirable classic work, the Driver's Manual, was republished only this week or last week.

Mr. Osborn: I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will lose no opportunity of studying it.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that garage owners are taking no notice of anything his Ministry says on any subject whatever? Will he try to get these garage owners to behave properly, and not to indulge in the peculiar rackets that they are engaged in?

Mr. Peyton: When the hon. Gentleman makes that sort of observation I suspect that it springs from his own unhappy experience that no one has been taking enough notice of what he says.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREATER LONDON DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DOUGLAS JAY: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the report of the Layfield Panel of Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan; and whether he will publish it at the earliest opportunity so that the public may study and comment on its findings.

Mr. Crosland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Housing and Construction at Question Time referred to Question No. 48, which concerns the whole population of London very intimately. Will the Secretary of State, by leave of the House, answer that Question now?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

Mr. Rippon: I will happily answer the Question now if I have leave of the House to do so.
I expect to receive the report in the next few days. I cannot say when it will be published but it will be at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Crosland: May I take it—and I think that the reply means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will publish the report—that he will do so before the Government announce any decisions on its major findings?

Mr. Rippon: We shall follow the proper statutory procedures.

Mr. Jay: As Question No. 48 stands in my name, perhaps I may ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any reason why he should not say here and now that he will publish this extremely important report as soon as he receives it, as was done in the case of the report on the third London airport.

Mr. Rippon: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands the status of this report, although he has had a number of letters about it. It is a statutory development plan and I must follow the appropriate procedures. I thought it right to answer Question No. 48 now, having been invited to do so, because I appreciate that people want the report published as early as possible. Any suggestion that I am unwilling to publish it is quite unfounded.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall first hear a statement, then a Standing Order No. 9 application, and then points of order.

CHRYSLER UNITED KINGDOM LTD.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): In January 1967, the then Government agreed that the Chrysler Corporation should acquire control of Rootes Motors Limited, now known as Chrysler UK Limited, and the American parent company today holds 88·4 per cent. of the equity capital and 93·8 per cent. of the voting shares. The corporation recently asked for a release from one of eight undertakings which it gave in 1967. This


would enable it to acquire the remaining minority shareholdings in Chrysler UK Limited. The Government have said that they would agree to this subject to the necessary exchange control consents being obtained.
The Chrysler Corporation has confirmed that the remaining undertakings, where still applicable, will remain in force including the undertaking to maintain a majority of British directors on the board of Chrysler UK. It has also confirmed that it has every intention of continuing the operations of Chrysler UK Limited in manufacturing vehicles for the British market and for export and of utilising as fully as possible its extensive plants in the United Kingdom.
The principal advantage to Chrysler UK Limited of this proposed adjustment is that, since other Chrysler subsidiaries in Europe are 100 per cent. owned, the UK company will no longer suffer even a marginal disadvantage in attracting new investment. The company therefore, takes the view that transfer of the remaining 6·2 per cent. of voting shares and other stock to the Chrysler Corporation is beneficial to it.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, although some of the anxiety about the matter would have been relieved if the statement had been volunteered instead of having to be read in a Press release issued by Chrysler itself.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety that arises in this case in that we are the only country in the world that has the three American motor giants present in our own society and there are many jobs at stake, particularly in development areas, notably at Linwood? He has referred to the conditions that were agreed in 1967 between the then Government and Chrysler and the position is not as clear as might appear from his statement.
For instance, could he tell the House whether the Chrysler Corporation, in negotiation with the Government, still confirms that there will be expansion of its operations in this country? That was one of the conditions in 1967. There is no reference to expansion in the current statement, only a reference to the maintenance and utilisation of plant and capa-

city where possible. In view of the difficulties which Chrysler has experienced, and the examples recently of foreign investment by, for example, Ford in Spain, there is necessarily some anxiety on that score.
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the trade unions, which are vitally concerned, were consulted by the Government about the change of conditions and whether the Government themselves consulted the firm to ask it for its own manpower and investment forecasts and whether the fact that the regional employment premium is to end—which, we read in the newspapers, is to cost the Ford Motor Company £1 a year—is likely to have any impact on Chrysler's determination or wish to expand its facilities in this country?

Mr. Chafaway: The right hon. Gentleman referred to my volunteering a statement. Like any other Minister, I am loath to take time from other debates on any matters which are of lesser importance, and I suppose that it must remain a question of opinion whether the transfer of 6 per cent, of the voting shares in the third or fourth largest motor company in this country warrants taking away time from other debates.
The 1967 undertaking to expand was, of course, related to development work that was then in progress, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that, once control has passed to another company, in reality there can be no undated undertaking to expand. Nonetheless, what the corporation is doing here is to give a modest indication of confidence in that it wants to put further money into the company. I think it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should talk about concern. It was he who approved the acquisition of control of the company by an American corporation. He cannot now argue that the change from 94 per cent. to 100 per cent. control has any substantial effect.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the regional employment premium and about consultation with the trade unions and so on. On the latter point, as he knows, it would not be possible, where a share exchange of this kind is concerned, for such consultations to be undertaken; but there was of course full consultation with the company and I


have pointed out that the United Kingdom directors of the company unanimously take the view that it is in the interests of Chrysler (UK) Ltd. that this modest adjustment should be made.

Mr. Benn: But is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government agreed to this without seeking from the company an assurance that there would be an expansion of its own facilities in the United Kingdom, as was done in 1967? When the offer for the shares is in this form, is there any reason why the trade unions should not have been brought into consultation before the decision was taken?

Mr. Chatawav: The transfer of the shares can, of course, take place only after there has been a special meeting of the company, and it will be within the powers of a majority of the minority shareholders to block it if they so wish. No doubt they will take into account the profitability of the business and in that also take into account any reaction there may be from trade unionists. But the indication we have from Chrysler UK Ltd., with which we have been in negotiation, is that this is very clearly an adjustment, and a very modest adjustment, which is in the interests of the company, because the difficulty which has arisen is that in order to raise fresh capital the company now has to have a rights issue because of the small number of minority shareholders in this country.
The issues in 1967 and 1970 had all to be taken up almost in their entirety by the Chrysler Corporation because there was no demand for the shares on the British market. In that circumstance, it is somewhat of a handicap to the company in raising new funds and expanding to have this particular share construction. The right hon. Gentleman should not delude himself that the largely cosmetic undertakings which he secured in 1967 can have any major influence on a company such as this.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement substantially is a paraphrase of the managing director's notice to employees, and that, in using that paragraph, he has totally omitted to deal with the very important Chrysler air conditioning manufacturing, which primarily takes place in my con-

stituency? I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give any sort of parallel assurance on that, such as he has given virtually word for word from what the managing director said on the vehicles side.
Secondly, there is the question of the actual share price. Is my right hon. Friend aware that no dividend has been paid since 1965 and therefore the price that the company has offered is really extremely generous in the circumstances? With one thing and another, there is no cause for complaint, except possibly in this one division which I have mentioned.

Mr. Chataway: Obviously, it is not for me to comment on the price that is being offered. It will be for the minority shareholders to make up their own minds. The undertaking and statement of intention by the firm, to which I have referred, refer to Chrysler as a whole.

Mr. Buchan: The incredibly careless levity with which the right hon. Gentleman has treated this matter is disgraceful and unsatisfactory to both sides. Is not he aware that the operators of the company were already the subject of guarantees to successive Governments—including the Conservative Government in 1964— and that we would have expected the same kind of involvement and assurances on this occasion? Before the public holding of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was disposed of in January this year, what continuing guarantees and assurances were given? What assurance do we have on the question of expansion, particularly at Linwood? Did the right hon. Gentleman find out from the company whether the trade unions involved were consulted?
If there has been any anxiety in this situation, it is because of the failure of the Government to recognise how serious it is that a key strategic company, in addition to what is already a huge segment of British industry, is now also passing 100 per cent. into the control of a foreign corporation.

Mr. Chataway: I have already answered the question about consultation, and I have made it clear whom the Government consulted. On the question of the IRC dispersal, it will be recalled that the previous Government, in 1967, made it clear that it was a temporary


holding by the IRC and that the intention was that the IRC should maintain that holding for, as they put it, only a few critical years. It was written into the agreement between the Government of 1967 and Chrysler that Chrysler should in due course acquire that holding. This makes it all the more puzzling that the Opposition should take the view that the whole of the 15 per cent. should be maintained, because on 16th January 1967 exchange control consent was given for the sale of the IRC holding, which is a substantial proportion of the 15 per cent., to the Chrysler Corporation.
On the question of expansion, the Chrysler Corporation has made it clear that its purpose is to make it easier for it to put new investment into the company. This move involves it investing a substantial amount more, and in the public commitments which it has made as well as the intentions which it has described to the Government it has made it absolutely clear that its intention is to expand as much as possible.

Mr. Farr: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend said, may I press him on the question of the expansion of production? Chrysler, in very recent discussions which I had with it, indicated to me that, unless it got its way over a planning application for a new vehicle testing track, it had in mind the transfer of quite a part of its production facilities in this country to other countries on the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Chataway: I assure my hon. Friend that I am anxious that we should do all in our power to enable Chrysler and other major firms to expand. The House should be in no doubt that decisions—and the situation has not changed in this respect—will, in the main, depend on the performance of the British subsidiary. But we shall do all in our power to enable and to encourage firms to expand in this country.

Mr. Edelman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman, by referring to this flagrant breach, with Government collusion, in the 1967 undertaking as "a cosmetic operation", show a total incapacity to understand the disquiet which will be felt throughout the country at a 100 per cent. American takeover of the residual presence of a British share-

holding which was undertaken not only by the Labour Government but by the previous Conservative Government? In these circumstances, will not the Minister and the Government, even at this late stage, veto this transaction to ensure the presence of a British shareholding, whether private or public, and that the British directors will be able to defend British interests?

Mr. Chataway: The Government of the time were not able to explain what additional influence a 15 per cent. shareholding would give and nobody today has produced any argument showing that a 6 per cent. shareholding can be of national importance or can increase the British influence over the company.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although I support him in this decision, it must be seen in the context of very great concern about the activities of American-owned car manufacturers in this country? In 1971, exports by those companies from the United Kingdom fell by 7 per cent.; imports rose by over 200 per cent. I understand that the figures this year may well be of equally alarming proportions.
My right hon. Friend's statement follows a recent announcement by Chrysler that temporarily perhaps, it is no longer exporting Avengers to the United States. At the same time, I understand that consultations have been taking place between Chrysler and Mitsubishi over the import of Colts into the United States. As my right hon. Friend says, this is a relatively minor cosmetic matter, but the context in which it takes place is of deep concern to the whole British economy.

Mr. Chataway: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course there are major issues which affect American multinational companies. The decision to allow the company to pass into American ownership was very important, and I do not deny that. However, nobody should be under any illusion that the undertakings which were then secured materially altered the position, because they did not. I have made it clear that the remainder of the undertakings which are still applicable have been confirmed and I have explained that, while no disadvantages have been mentioned today, there are advantages for the United Kingdom company.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the question of exports is very important, although, as he says, it is totally unaffected by the matter we are now discussing. It is worth saying for the record that between 1967 and 1971 Chrysler increased its exports from 27·5 per cent. to 50·9 per cent. But there was nothing about imports in the undertakings given in 1967. It is the balance of trade which is of primary importance to the country.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is the most important undertaking given by Chrysler which has been broken? Does he not think that the House should be consulted before all major investment decisions pass to Detroit? Cannot he understand that Ford and General Motors have already shown how it is possible to "Europeanise" production and to play off one country against another? Is he asking the House to regard a British stake in this company as an investment disadvantage? If there is to be a British stake, should it not be a Government stake?

Mr. Chataway: I do not take that view, nor did the previous Government, who made specific arrangements for the sale of the IRC holding which accounted for a large proportion of the share which it was agreed should be reserved for British ownership. Major investment decisions are taken by the majority shareholder, and when the majority shareholder already has 94 per cent. of the voting shares there is absolutely no doubt that that is where the decision will be taken. Therefore, all the issues which the hon. Gentleman raises were relevant in 1967; they are not relevant now.

Sir R. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chrysler Corporation, with 94 per cent. control of its subsidiary in this country, has pretty well all the power which it needs to do what it likes with the company and that if for investment purposes it requires another 6 per cent., and if the consequence of that is to make it easier in this country to raise the funds which must be dedicated to the expansion and improvement of the company, we should agree to that enthusiastically and not make mountains out of pathetic little molehills?

Mr. Chataway: I agree entirely.

Mr. Sheldon: Is it not astonishing that the Minister, who has responsibility and is expected to understand these matters, fails to appreciate the crucial difference between a 100 per cent. ownership and a stake whereby the company can be made accountable for British interests? The whole purpose of the agreement was that there should be representation of British interests within the company, and the Minister has sold that away for no assurances whatever.

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, I am very surprised that he did not object very strongly in 1967 when the Labour Government, not only gave control to the American company, but agreed to sell subsequently the IRC shareholding.
The major influence which a Government has over a multinational company lies in the fact that such a company is dependent on the laws of the country and, in many ways, on the Government for the climate in which it operates. The continuing discussions between the Government and any major multinational company are of much the greatest importance. However, I hope that the reaction of right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not be taken abroad as indicating that the Opposition have changed their mind about inward investment, because, as the previous Prime Minister—

Mr. Dalyell: Do not be silly.

Mr. Chataway: When control was being transferred to the American company, the previous Prime Minister made it clear that we as a country welcomed American inward investment. I believe that that is still the position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is beginning to seem like a debate.

Mr. Bucban: On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate to make such a point of order on a statement.

ARMS EXPENDITURE

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's intention to make a big increase in arms spending".
The matter is specific because last night, in Brussels, the Secretary of State for Defence announced the Government's intention to increase arms expenditure by 5 per cent. in real terms. In cash terms, that means far more than £150 million in real terms, and it is on top of this year's increase, which is an all-time record, bringing the total expenditure to £2,854 million a year.
The matter is urgent because the Minister's announcement was made on the eve of the conference on mutual and balanced forced reductions—

Mr. Russell Kerr: It was meant to sabotage it.

Mr. Allaun: As my hon. Friend says, it was meant to sabotage it.
The matter is urgent because, far from reducing international tension, the announcement will set back the growing hopes of détente and will endanger the conference which is due to begin very shortly. It will also enhance the suspicion that the Government do not want the conference to succeed. The matter is also urgent because the arms estimates, to be announced in February, are now being drawn up within the Ministry:
The matter is important because this country already devotes a higher proportion of its gross national product to so-called defence than any other Western European NATO country, with the exception of Portugal. The Minister of State for Defence told the House this year that if we reduced arms expenditure to the same proportion of GNP as that of the other Western European NATO countries £600 million would be saved for other things.
It is also important because last night's announcement was made at a time when it has been revealed that the housing situation is more serious than it has been for years. The extra money which the

Government are to devote to arms expenditure would build an additional 30,000 houses for families who desperately need them.
I therefore think that there is a case for the House to consider under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me considerable notice that he intended to make this application. Therefore, I have had the opportunity of considering it carefully. I have also listened to what he said today —it came very near to the kind of speech which he would have made if his application had been granted.
Of course this is an important matter. It is obviously a matter for debate, but not, in my view, under Standing Order No. 9, either today or tomorrow. Therefore, I rule against the hon. Gentleman's application.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Healey: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that in columns 1131 and 1132 of yesterday's HANSARD the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted, and he said with authorisation, the advice which he had received from the Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise on two matters of current political controversy, one of which fell outside the direct responsibilities of the Customs and Excise. The right hon. Gentleman later told us that the quotations were made from notes which he had personally made of a conversation with Sir Louis Patch. I make no comment on the content of the quotation, although it gave an impression very different from that given by a statement obtained from the staff association of the Customs and Excise today.
I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if tomorrow you would rule on the following questions. First, is the Treasury Minister free to quote what he wishes out of context from any advice on any issue received from an official of the Customs and Excise without laying on the Table a full record of the conversation or other context within which these quotations were made?
Secondly, if it is in order, are hon. Members free to table Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on any


advice which he may have received from the Customs and Excise?
Thirdly, is it in order for the appropriate Select Committee of this House to invite the Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise to give evidence of the attitude of the Customs and Excise towards value added tax—its attitude in the past and its attitude today?
Finally, if all those matters are in order, how far do these liberties extend? Do they permit any Minister to quote advice received, for example, from the Under-Secretary of a Government Department on any issue or the Secretary of

State for Defence to quote advice received from chiefs of staff on any matter within his purview. Does it extend to subordinates of the heads of departments and Government bodies, and, if so, down to what level?
I should be grateful, and the House would be grateful, if, Mr. Speaker, you would rule on these questions, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has raised some interesting questions. I should like time to consider them and I will rule, if necessary, tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS (OVERSEAS RESIDENCE)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am more than delighted at having drawn first place in the ballot to raise this subject on the Consolidated Fund Bill. On the last three occasions I have found myself speaking in the early hours of the morning. There are many subjects to be discussed on this Bill and I know what it is to miss a subject; therefore, I shall endeavour to be brief.
I am grateful to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the difficulties which are falling on a minority of elderly people who choose to spend their retirement abroad—140,000 out of a total of 7,647,000 retirement pensioners, according to December 1971 figures. Difficulties are being caused because from the time a national insurance pensioner goes abroad, no increase in the national retirement pension can be paid unless there is a reciprocal agreement existing, or, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security wrote to me in a letter at the end of June:
When National Insurance Pensions are increased in this country, pensioners who have gone to live in other countries are not entitled to receive the increased rates as long as they continue to live abroad or return to this country. They are entitled to receive pensions at the rate applicable in this country while they are here. But if they go abroad again their pension reverts to the former rate unless they become an ordinary resident here in the meantime.
Some 140,000 pensioners are affected out of approximately 7½ million retirement pensioners. However, 46,000 are already covered by reciprocal agreements with the EEC and most other European countries except Spain and Portugal. That includes 16,000 retirement pensioners in Canada and 12,000 in the United States. Outside the 24 reciprocal agreements that exist with other countries, there remain

approximately 94,000 pensioners. Some 53,000 are covered by generous reciprocal arrangements that have been made with Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, both these countries top up the retirement pensioners of this country.
The problem really concerns approximately 41,000 retirement pensioners who are scattered around the world, the largest number of whom are in South Africa, 6,700. There are 3,000 in Spain, 1,145 in Pakistan and 549 in India. I note that there are 2.500 in Poland. That number is composed largely of those who came here during the war, who worked here and then went home.
The problem has been drawn to my attention following some visits to Spain. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I have an 80-year-old father-in-law who has lived in the United States for the last four years, and an 80-year-old cousin living in South Africa. Therefore, I know a little about their feelings in facing the high cost of living in these countries.
But the problem facing our pensioners in Spain is obviously applicable to the 41,000 pensioners of this country who are now scattered around the world, and for whom no reciprocal agreement exists. This policy is hitting particularly hard the pensioners who over the last 10 years or so have been living abroad and who are now having to face increased costs with what will be a twice devalued £.
The law seems most unjust as it penalises a small minority of elderly people, the majority of whom have spent the whole of their working lives in the United Kingdom, who have paid the whole of their qualifying contributions here and who now live abroad. The majority of the pensioners who live abroad are mostly taxpayers in the United Kingdom and have been so all their lives. Some pensioners who have gone overseas have done so to be near their families who are working abroad, or for medical reasons, and who if resident here would be quite a cost to the National Health Service.
It seems particularly mean not to pay the pension increases, especially when one considers that such pensioners have reached an age when medical or nursing care is much more frequently required than in earlier life. I am sure that the consequential saving to the National


Health Service outweighs the cost of any periodical increase.
In fairness to Governments in the past, the denial of such pension increases was understandable in times when the economic and financial position of the United Kingdom was desperate following six years of war and its aftermath. But that position no longer applies. That is shown by the fact that the Government have seen fit to ensure that periodical increases in public services and disability pensions have not been denied to pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Acts 1969 and 1971 on the ground of residence abroad.
If such increases are allowed, increases in the National Insurance pension should also be allowed. The increase in the cost of living is worldwide and is not confined to the United Kingdom. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I know how much he bases the Government's case on reciprocal arrangements with other countries, and rightly so. But no reciprocal agreement exists with Spain, Portugal or South Africa. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State can assure the House that progress is being made with such agreements. It seems wrong, when the whole of a person's working life has been spent in the United Kingdom, when the whole of his qualifying contributions have been paid here, and when he continues to be a taxpayer, that the small increase should not be paid to him.
Alas, as we all know, increases in national insurance pensions are only in part real increases. The major part, particularly with inflation, is to compensate for the reduction of the constantly decreasing value of the pension, and to try to keep it up in real terms.
The inflationary reductions affect the overseas pensioners just as much as those who stay in the United Kingdom, and have done so more particularly during the recent floating of the £. During the period when those persons contributed to the national insurance scheme they paid for retroactive increases for those already retired. Surely they in their turn should he entitled to retroactive increases when others receive increases.
Although negotiations with Spain are at present held up, will the Under-Secre-

tary of State for Health and Social Security tell us when he thinks an agreement with Spain will be reached? Can he say what other reciprocal arrangements are being negotiated? Those arrangements constitute the nub of the problem and will lighten the burden of payments which, morally, we should make to these pensioners.
For the present I am concerned with the narrow point of ensuring that increases in national retirement pensions go to the people entitled to them, not only to the retirement pensioners resident in the United Kingdom.
When he last wrote to me on the subject the Under-Secretary of State stressed that he wanted to keep a fair balance between what is paid to pensioners abroad and what is fair as regards contributors in the United Kingdom. During the summer he thought the policy was striking a right balance. But has he taken into account the savings for the National Health Service in hard cash each year, apart from the time which would otherwise have been spent by doctors and nurses? Surely that would outweigh the cost of periodical increases paid to such pensioners and the cost of supplementary pensions.
The Government must realise that social and economic policies in the United Kingdom vitally affect pensioners resident abroad, who are now bitterly experiencing the floating £ and thus suffering a reduction in their pensions and other income derived from their hard-earned savings left in the United Kingdom.
The Government have shown that they care about people living at home. I am grateful for the £10 bounty which is being paid to old-age pensioners. In December, 1971, I spoke of a 10 per cent. unemployment rate in one town. The £10 paid to each pensioner will bring the purchasing power in that town to £130,000 this Christmas. It will help. In that spirit I hope the Government will be equally understanding of this problem.
I estimate that the bill for what I am asking will total £10 million annually. I know that the question of priorities is involved in all expenditure. But I am sure that if the matter were put to the country as a whole, it would be accepted


as a moral obligation and as a priority we should face. The majority of people in the country would believe it right to honour this kind of pledge to people who, during their working lives, have helped the country. If we press ahead with a reciprocal agreement we can substantially reduce the £10 million annually.
I therefore ask the Under-Secretary of State to amend the present regulations so that the pension increases can be paid to retirement pensioners living abroad.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for having raised this issue.
There are three principal reasons why people of retirement age go abroad. First, they often go to join their children who have made a new life abroad. Secondly, if they were originally foreigners or Commonwealth citizens who had settled in Britain, when they retire they think of returning to the country of their birth, and do return. Thirdly, there are those who, for reasons of ill health or because they have the resources to pay to live in a sunnier climate, decide to spend their retirement days near beaches and golf courses where the sun never sets.
I cannot speak strongly on behalf of those who retire to Spain and Majorca in that way. I feel that they have made a calculated decision and that they know what they are doing. None the less, questions of principle arise out of the Government's attitude towards the payment of pensions overseas. People who go overseas on retirement have paid their contributions in the same way as those who remain in the United Kingdom. The only difference between the two groups is that one stays and one goes. One has to decide whether the country regards it as desirable that people should leave and settle elsewhere in their old age or should remain. Many questions arise, some of which have been raised by the hon. Member for Harwich.
Have the Government drawn up any kind of balance sheet concerning the cost of paying increased pensions, as they come to pass, to those who have gone abroad in retirement, as against the savings to be expected because such persons do not use hospital services, supplementary benefits and welfare services?
Nobody suggests that old people should be driven abroad, but if somebody wishes to go to live with a son who emigrated 20 years before, do the Government wish to encourage that situation, or to discourage it?
The bulk of the 140,000 people drawing pensions while living abroad are covered by reciprocal agreements, in particular in Australia and New Zealand, which are signatories to such agreements. It is to those shores that most old people have gone who wish to join their children. But there are, for example, East Europeans, Asians and West Indians—particularly Asians and West Indians in my constituency—who are likely to hanker to return to their native shores to spend their declining days. Is it the Government's policy to put no obstacle in their way, or to discourage them from going abroad?
Those are questions to which I should like answers.
It is difficult, in logic, to sustain an argument that people should receive less money, simply because of where they are living, if they have paid the same contributions as everyone else, and have paid them for an equal length of time. I concede that if the numbers involved were very great there could be a drain on the balance of payments. But the numbers are so small—and the increases that we are talking about are liable to be so insignificant in relation to the numbers involved—that there can be no question of a drain on the balance of payments.
My speech consists of a series of questions.
I ask the Government to adopt a consistent policy towards all persons who retire, so that a man or woman, after having decided to leave these shores, should not have to choose the country of retirement carefully according to whether or not there is a reciprocal agreement in force.
The figures are not liable to be great, but with inflation galloping along they will be much greater in the future than in the past. Clearly, to a person choosing a residence abroad it will matter whether the pension he will receive is the pension paid at the time of departure, or will be susceptible to the annual increases which are likely to occur.
Those who live in certain countries may, apparently, find in future that they will obtain lump sum bonuses at Christmas, whereas others may not qualify for such a bonus. I presume that the lump sum payment will apply to pensioners living in countries covered by reciprocal agreements. If I am wrong, no doubt I shall be told so. I see the Minister nodding his head affirmatively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): So that there may be no confusion about it, I should explain that I was attempting to convey to the hon. Member that I shall answer his question when I reply.

Mr. Lyons: I am sorry if I expected an affirmative answer. The Minister is keeping his cards close to his chest, so that we do not know what he will say. The conversion to occasional lump sum payments may in due course be used as a reason for not increasing pensions, or for not giving adequate basic pensions, so that those pensioners who have gone to a non-treaty country may find themselves penalised even further. I believe that with only 41,000 people excluded from the present arrangements the Government could afford a rational and consistent policy which does not depend upon a series of treaties.
Although there are 140,000 people living abroad, of whom 41,000 are not covered by an agreement, owing to the contraction of the world, the increase in the number of Britons emigrating and the larger number of alien and Commonwealth citizens living in this country, far more people will be retiring abroad in 25 years' time than do so at present. I suggest that in 15 years' time 500,000 will be retiring abroad, and in due course we shall face a substantial problem.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I wish to speak briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) in his carefully-worded plea for this comparatively small number of our fellow citizens who have retired abroad. Many hon. Members have received recently from a lady resident in South Africa a well presented document detailing the individual cases of a large number of our former constituents. I believe that the Minister has a copy of

the document, and I hope that this well presented plea will be attended to. I see from it that I have no less than six former constituents among these unfortunate people, and that there are also a large number of ex-Service people in this category. Ex-Service people have had no fixed home in this country and have had no Member of Parliament to turn to and they may well have children or other relatives resident abroad. They may wish to go to live with or near their relatives in their retirement. That presents a particular problem for hon. Members who represent Service towns. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the letter and will tell us what he intends to do about it.
I hope, too, that he will take us into his confidence and tell us what is the state of play over the attempts to obtain a reciprocal agreement with Spain. Spain creates the biggest problem after South Africa. We have read harrowing stories of people who have gone to live there and who have had to return because of the rampant inflation. This is very hard for them. Moving house in this country is costly enough, but moving house and selling property across a frontier is even more costly. The House is therefore entitled to some news about the Spanish situation, and if it is bad news I hope that the Minister will do everything he can to speed up the negotiations and to see that they reach a favourable conclusion.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have no wish to detain the House for more than a few moments because I wish to speak also in a later Adjournment debate.

Mr. Speaker: I must protect the hon. Member from himself. If he rises now he will have no chance of catching my eye later, even if he now speaks for only a few moments. So he must make the choice.

Mr. Stallard: I still intend to express an interest in this subject, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on choosing this subject. I have been pursuing the case of an ex-constituent who went to live with a relative and found herself in these circumstances. I have no intention of repeating the arguments that have already been


put forward by other hon. Members but I should like to make my plea to the Minister to speed up reciprocal agreements wherever possible. I hope that he is not thinking of giving us the stereotyped reply that we have heard from all Governments in past years when we were told that pensions could be paid only to people resident in the United Kingdom, in order to maintain a balance. People who have left this country have also contributed to the pensions and to the benefits. It is therefore a little unjust that they are not now entitled to the increases and to the further benefits that accrue from past contributions if from nothing else.
I hope that the Minister will veer away from the usual stereotyped reply and take a fresh look at this matter. It is a problem for many of our former constituents who have had to live abroad with relatives. I took my former constituent's case as far as I could. I eventually wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner quite recently, because I thought there might be grounds for an examination because of maladministration which resulted in disparity of treatment between persons in similar circumstances. The Parliamentary Commissioner found that there was no maladministration and that there was no case to answer in that respect.
I still believe that it will fall to the House in its compassion, if nothing else, to do something for these people, who deserve better treatment than they are getting and who, in many cases, are suffering severe hardship. Will the Minister take a new look at this, speed up the making of reciprocal agreements and give satisfaction to these people?

4.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for raising this subject, and I am glad that he has drawn first place in the ballot and not 16th, which would probably mean a debate at breakfast time tomorrow morning. As he said, the law provides that a person living abroad receives his pension current at the time that he left the country or when he qualified whilst abroad. He does not receive an increase unless he lives in a country with which we have a reciprocal agreement under

which each country has undertaken to pay the pensions and increases in the other country.
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the reciprocal agreements. The number of countries with which we have these agreements has grown over the years. They now exist with 19 countries, and we attach importance to extending them. I hope to give a few details about negotiations in the course of my speech.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) asked whether the £10 lump sum bonus would be paid in countries where increases apply. The answer is "No". The lump sum is paid only to those pensioners resident in this country at the appropriate time. For most people it is during this week.
The number of pensioners overseas at the end of 1971 was 140,000, of whom 46,000 receive pension increases. Unfortunately, this by no means gives the whole picture, which is much more complicated. For example, some British pensioners receive a pension from the country in which they reside.
The biggest groups of pensioners not covered by reciprocal agreements are in Australia, where there are 40,000 British pensioners, and New Zealand, where there are 13,000. Our pensioners in these countries can receive Australian or New Zealand pensions on arrival, but our pensions are often deducted and a balance paid. In other words, the actual income is at Australian or New Zealand pension level. In these cases our increases would not benefit the pensioners concerned. Broadly speaking, these pensions are paid on a means test.
Another country in which there is a sizeable number of our pensioners is Canada, where there are nearly 16,000. They are not covered by reciprocal agreements, but some can get the Canadian pension. It is estimated that about 24 per cent. may be eligible for the Canadian old-age security pension, which is payable after 10 years' continuous residence before the time of the claim. I quote those cases to convey to the House that the situation is much more complicated than just whether or not we happen to have reciprocal agreements with the countries concerned.
In Spain there are just over 3,000 of our pensioners. We are hoping to negotiate a reciprocal agreement, and we have put written proposals to the Spanish authorities for an agreement which would include pensions and under which our increases would be payable. Negotiations inevitably take time because when one is negotiating an agreement it is desirable to cover as wide a variety of needs as possible. Our pensioners are interested not only in the payment of a pension but in health services. The Spanish Government are interested in cover for Spanish workers who come to this country. I cannot say when agreement will be reached, but we are anxious to promote the negotiations as quickly as possible.

Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend say how many Spanish workers are resident and working here, particularly in the fruit marketing trades, because the number may be comparable with, or even more than, the number of our pensioners in Spain?

Mr. Dean: That is one factor. Off the cuff I cannot give a figure. I will write to my hon. Friend and see that he gets any information that we have.
South Africa was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), amongst others. There are over 6,000 of our pensioners there and, as my hon. Friend said, a letter has come to my Department recently from one of them. I received a copy of it only a short time ago, but I shall study carefully its contents. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to be able to make a reciprocal agreement with South Africa, as that country has no pension scheme comparable with ours. There is a means tested pension available to citizens or to people with 15 years' residence out of the last 20, but many of our pensioners will not qualify for this on grounds of nationality, residence or means.
The picture, therefore, is complicated. It varies from country to country. It involves not only pension arrangements but other cash benefits and health services. Taxation is another feature which varies considerably and adds to the complexities. What is clear is that the reciprocal agreements are important. We intend to press ahead with them where-ever we conceivably can. We are

anxious to get the most comprehensive agreement we can with as many countries as possible.
We also have to take into account the number of British people in the various countries who are able to qualify for a pension in the country in which they reside. As far as we know, ours is the only country, except Gibraltar, which pays its pensions abroad unconditionally, but pays increases only under reciprocal agreements. Most other countries either do not pay at all, unless there are reciprocal agreements, or pay both the pension and the increases. One or two countries reduce their pensions when they are paid abroad.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As I understand it, if there is a reciprocal agreement a pensions increase is automatically paid. Does an ex-Serviceman drawing an ex-Service pension and a disability pension draw a pension increase? If he does not, what is the logic of his getting the ex-Service pension, the disability pension but not the old-age pension?

Mr. Dean: The answer to the first point, on whether the full pension is payable under reciprocal agreements, is that it usually is the case, but it depends upon the reciprocal agreement concerned. The practice differs on disability pensions. We pay both war disability pensions and industrial injury pensions, plus increases, regardless of where the person resides. There is a preference here that has existed for many years which the war pensioner and the industrial injury pensioner enjoys over the national insurance pensioner.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I understood my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to be pursuing a further point. He was asking whether increases are paid to public service pensions, that is to say, ex-Servicemen, civil servants, teachers, members of NALGO and even Members of Parliament who go abroad. What is the position about the payment of annual increases under the public service schemes?

Mr. Dean: Again, the answer is that depends on the public service or the occupational pension scheme. I think I am correct in saying that under most public


service schemes, if not all, increases are payable abroad. They are payable abroad in many cases under occupational pension schemes. Here again it depends upon the rules and regulations of the individual scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich said, the cost of paying for increases in all countries would be about £10½ million a year at present, but future annual costs are likely to be higher as our pension rates are improved and as the number of pensioners abroad increases.
Reference has been made to arguments used by successive Governments over the years against making changes other than through reciprocal agreements. It is easy to make out a case for almost any improvement in social security arrangements, but it is the job of the Government to decide the order of priority. Whatever we may feel on this issue, I think the House will accept that that still holds good. We have to weigh the merits of this case against the merits of many other cases which exist for more expenditure on the social services. That is one factor that must be taken into account.
Equally, the national insurance scheme is meant to provide for persons in this country. That is its primary intention. Successive Governments have argued that we cannot accept responsibility to maintain the income for people who have elected to live abroad, and the payment of frozen pensions anywhere in the world is a concession.
Another factor is that the increases, which are now provided on an annual basis, are related to social and economic conditions here, and are paid by employers and workers in this country. But even without the increases most pensioners abroad are receiving good value for the contributions they have paid to the scheme. Even if they have worked and contributed in this country for most of their working lives, the maximum contribution they could have made will be a great deal less than the pension they will receive. One set of figures will illustrate that. The maximum contribution to the scheme that any employed man could have made since 1948 is just over £700, whereas the present full rate of pension for a married couple is over

£500 in one year. Therefore even pensioners receiving a reduced rate are getting a good bargain.
Another point is that the bulk of the money required to increase pensions comes from contributions and not from taxation. Persons abroad do not in any event pay taxes such as purchase tax, and if they pay income tax on earnings here they may not have to pay a similar tax in their country of residence.
There is also the question of entitlement under the National Health Service and the supplementary benefits scheme. This is based on residence in this country and not on the payment of contributions. I fully accept that there is a balance sheet argument, which was used by the hon. Member for Bradford, East. The fact that they are not in this country means that they do not require the facilities of the National Health Service. I accept that that is the other side of that argument.
I assure the House that the Government will carefully consider the points put during the debate. The whole question of our pensions abroad is being reviewed. I have tried to convey that it is a highly complicated matter, involving a great deal more than just the payment of pensions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister also consider the fact that many areas, such as mine, are overcrowded. Old people are living in big houses, but will not leave for a number of reasons. They certainly will not go abroad if they know they will not receive the pension. Many of them might well go abroad if the circumstances were right, and they should be encouraged to do so if they want to, because that could relieve overcowding by helping to depopulate some areas. They could go to see their friends and relatives, and thus help the situation here. It might well help the Government with their housing problem.

Mr. Edward Lyons: As a supplementary point to that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is better not to have a supplementary to an intervention. Perhaps the Minister will answer first.

Mr. Dean: The Government will give full and careful consideration to the points


made in this valuable debate, including that which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has just raised.
We are reviewing all the arrangements. They are highly complex. They must be considered in the light of a whole range of other priorities, all of which must be considered on their merits. Therefore I cannot give any commitment other than to press on with reciprocal agreements, which we all regard as valuable.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Minister just answer this question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman answer?

Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lyons: Further to what my hon. Friend for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has just said, and what I asked, do the Government as a policy look with favour or disfavour on elderly people emigrating? Surely, certain consequences would follow the answer to that question.

Mr. Dean: I do not think I can be called upon in a debate like this to answer such a question. What I can say, and have already said, is that we favour reciprocal agreements with other countries where these are appropriate and can be negotiated.

Orders of the Day — SEX THERAPY

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am raising this matter and asking that investigations take place because I was recently handed a full and detailed testimony from a girl who volunteered to act as a sex therapist earlier this year for Dr. Martin Cole of Birmingham. Dr. Cole has already achieved widespread notoriety, and the last thing I want to do is to add to his fame. But the situation revealed by the girl is so full of dangers that investigation is imperative. Other persons may be operating in this way. If so, the dangers are obviously more widespread. An investigation would presumably reveal the extent to which non-medical

persons are setting themselves up as experts in a medical matter. That is the crux of the matter. Dr. Cole is not a doctor of medicine; he is a doctor of philosophy who lectures to young students on plant life and genetics at the University of Aston in Birmingham.
The girl, whose deposition I have here and shall hand to my hon. Friend the Minister after the debate, is not a student, but she accepted an offer by Cole to become a sex therapist after she had read and rather admired an account of his enterprise in providing practical tuition for impotent males. She had formerly had a boy friend of whom she was fond who apparently had difficulties in personal relationships, and without thinking very deeply about the implications and about the kind of services Cole offered, wrote to commend him on them. He wrote back inviting her to see him and to become a sex therapist. She agreed. Her subsequent experiences and the fears and revulsions that arose from them are listed in her testimony.
She had imagined that there would be a clinical and medical connotation to the service she was to offer, and she was surprised not to be given any advice or training. She was handed two books to read, the first by a Dr. Philip Cauthery, an associate of Cole's—I do not know whether he is still an associate, but he was then. The second was by two American doctors who apparently offered sex therapy in a clinic in the United States.
Miss X was told by Cole that she should use her own flat. There was no question of a clinic. Among the reasons he gave was that some clients might want to stay for a weekend.
She was paid £1·50 per session by Cole. She asked about contraception and he advised her on that. She quotes him as saying, "We must not have any of our therapists getting pregnant, although you need not worry—we can always get you an abortion." As Dr. Cole was the prime mover in getting the first abortion clinic set up in Birmingham only days after the 1967 Abortion Act became law, he knew what he was talking about.
Miss X was warned that she might have to deal with some very weird types, and that some might be on drugs. She asked, somewhat fearfully, whether any


might be dangerous, but Coles said that he thought he could recognise any potentially dangerous client and she was not to worry. I do not know whether she was naïve, or altogether too trusting, or what, but, as I have said, Dr. Cole is not a medical doctor. He not only has no knowledge of medicine, but he has no knowledge of psychiatry either, and I should have thought that in dealing with disturbed men even a psychiatrist might have difficulty in always stating that a man would not behave in a dangerous manner when under stress. It seems to me that there was, and still is, a real danger to girls who offer themselves in this way to clients of this type being attacked, possibly even done to death. Anyhow, Miss X was very trusting and she believed Dr. Cole when he said that he could protect her from any dangerous clients because he could recognise them.
A few weeks later, as her testimony shows, she was with a client when a thunderous knocking occurred on the door and the glass panels in the door revealed a blue-clad figure topped by a policeman's helmet. She knew at once that it was her fiance, who happened to be a policeman. He, I may say, had no knowledge whatsoever of the way in which she was offering her services, but there he was banging on the door, thereby considerably startling both her and her client.
It does not need very much imagination to consider what a slightly unbalanced man might have done in those circumstances, with the law hammering at the door and asking to be allowed in. Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that this girl was in considerable danger at that time, and although the situation has overtones even of farce, surely nobody would connive at the danger in which that girl was at the time.
I shall draw a veil over the rest of the saga, but on the last page of her testimony Miss X said:
I was panicky and out of my depth. I felt like a common prostitute. I just wanted to go out and leave everything behind me. What kind of system was it where patients knew my name and address and could visit me at any time; where I was told to counsel a patient without being given any training whatsoever; where I had to contend with

ex-inmates of mental hospitals and makers of obscene telephone calls?
She was not likely to run short of work, since at one point Dr. Cole informed her that he had about 400 men on his books.
I return to her testimony:
where, after sessions, I often had to spend three or four days contacting Dr. Coles to tell him of what occurred; where therapists were paid £1·50 a session like factory piece work. I had lost my boy friend and the prospect of our married happiness and lied and deceived to keep my connection with Dr. Cole secret.
It is not surprising that she did that. She did not tell her parents or any of her friends, but the fact that she had lied and deceived, which was not usual in her character, clearly upset her. She went on to say:
I had cheapened myself in an utterly ill-conceived cause",
and her final words were:
It is like a really bad dream".
I have no wish to debar any person who needs medical treatment from getting it, but surely such treatment can be given safely only within a proper medical context by doctors who know what they are doing, and within the National Health Service. The hazards of such a non-professional set-up as Dr. Cole has are even greater than Miss X lists. What about the dangers of venereal disease? One man about whom Cole briefed the girl had, said Cole, "tried 50 prostitutes". One has only to think about that to considers the dangers the girls are in from VD.
What about the personal lives of the women used by Cole in this way? If they are married, it is difficult to envisage that their employment would not have a disastrous effect on their marriage, for how could a normal marriage relationship possibly endure under such circumstances? If single, their chances of making normal marriage with a normal partner would surely be very much lessened. Men and women are not robots. Emotions do come into this in, I imagine, 90 out of 100 cases.
Miss X had some trouble with a client who became too fond of her. She told Cole about this, and he replied that it was almost inevitable. Her words on that are:
He is getting so fond of me he might get funny when he thinks I'm going with other


men. I don't think it's a good idea that he knows my name and where I live. He could arrive at any time. It puts everything on too personal basis.
Dr. Cole shrugged off her worries.
This is not a pleasant or savoury subject to raise in Parliament, but I was sent these details by someone to whom Miss X passed them. She is a constituent of mine, she has been through a considerable amount of trouble because of this, and I feel that since the whole dossier was handed to me she clearly has a right to expect me to take action on her behalf and to raise the matter here. This is a case of a woman being coldly and cynically used by a self-styled sex expert with no thought whatsoever of the harm that might come to her, and it is quite clear that other women are being used with similar callous disregard. Here is something that Women's Lib might take up. It seems to me that this is a far more serious instance of women being used than a beauty competition, however large and well publicised it is.
I am offering no suggestions whatsoever about the motives which drive Cole on. He has set up what he calls the Institute of Sex Education and Research in his own home, and goodness alone knows what goes on there, but that is his affair. I make no suggestion that his aims are mercenary. For all I know, he pays the £1·50 out of his own pocket. Certainly there is no evidence in the testimony that I have that any money passed between the client and the therapist.
But whatever Dr. Cole's aims may be, he should not be allowed to use a woman as if she were some sort of human kidney machine. Miss X involved herself quite voluntarily because she had no idea what she was letting herself in for. There is no doubt that the experience has harmed and distressed her, and it is possible that she will never recover from it. But how many other Miss Xs are there, and how does he recruit them? He is constantly in touch with young people, and this fact in itself must give cause for concern.
Are there other Dr. Cole, with a similar zealous fervour for sex and a similar lack of medical qualifications, operating elsewhere? They bring the whole cause of sensible sex education and balanced

views on it into disrepute, and if ever there was a case of abuses I submit that this is it. I am grateful to the House for permitting me to put forward this case on behalf of my constituent, and I beg that investigations be carried out so that other women are not used in the way in which Miss X has been used.

4.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), not only for raising this important subject, but also for being kind enough to give me a little advance notice of the material that she would be presenting to the House.
Although what might be broadly termed sex therapy has been known in one form or another since time immemorial, it is only in the last 100 years or so that sexual problems have been recognised as calling for dispassionate and scientific study and treatment. The problems are varied and cannot always be clearly separated from other forms of behavioural problems. Treatment methods are almost equally diverse. For instance, successes have been claimed for treatment of some forms of fetishism and homosexual tendencies by something akin to aversion therapy—patients have been subjected to sexual stimuli which have been simultaneously accompanied by electric shocks. Other treatment approximates to psychotherapy as it is usually understood, or simply to counselling. Certain sex problems are treated by prescribing hormones and other substances.
Treatment for sexual problems is of course available under the National Health Service both from general practitioners and from the hospital and specialist services, but I do not think that it would be wise to attempt to prohibit treatment by persons practising outside the National Health Service. This would be contrary to the principles we have followed, whatever the political complexion of the Government, since the inception of the National Health Service. It has always been accepted that people should be free to decide for themselves whether to avail themselves of National Health Service treatment or to choose to be treated privately.
I would regard that freedom of choice as particularly important in the field we are now considering. Just as, in the field of family planning, there must be many people who find it less embarrassing to consult complete strangers rather than go to the family doctor they have known perhaps for years, so people with sex problems may shrink from talking to their general practitioner and prefer to arrange private treatment or consultation.
It would be possible, in theory at least, to regulate the provision of sex therapy services outside the NHS rather than prohibiting them; but when this possibility is considered in detail it becomes apparent that we should encounter very serious problems and might well do more harm than good, by driving things underground.
The first difficulty would be to define what we wished to control. I have already indicated something of the diversity of treatments which are being practised, and in a field where there is still so much to be learned it would clearly be wrong to forbid or even seriously to hamper legitimate and responsible inquiry and experiment.
This is not to say that we should permit or condone any excesses or misdemeanours merely because they were committed in the name of research, or masqueraded under the title of science. The Sexual Offences Act, 1956, already proscribes various practices; I assume that my hon. Friend has already considered whether the particular acts to which she has drawn attention constitute a breach of that law, which is detailed and specific. It is open to her or to any other hon. Member who considers that Act to need revision under modern conditions to initiate the appropriate action.
Another possibility which might be considered is the prohibition of the provision of sex therapy services by anyone who is not medically qualified. My hon. Friend mentioned this as one of the points that she particularly wanted to pursue. However, this again would be contrary to the tradition of freedom and tolerance to which we are accustomed. We recognise that not all the advances and discoveries in medicine have been achieved by doctors and that the unorthodox practices of one generation may conceivably become the accepted treatment of the

next. Sigmund Freud, the great pioneer in the treatment of sexual problems by psychological methods, had to face bitter hostility from his medical colleagues before his theories began to gain acceptance.
There are only two categories of disease in respect of which there are restrictions on treatment or offers to treat—namely, venereal diseases, under the 1917 Act, and cancer, under the 1939 Cancer Act. In each case, there are obvious reasons of public interest for the restrictions. I do not at present think that it could be maintained that sex therapy could be regarded as coming into this category.
Having said all that, I am sure that every other hon. Member who has heard my hon. Friend would fully agree with her in deploring any attempt to exploit the needs or the weaknesses of ordinary, perhaps gullible, citizens for private gain. Particularly would we deplore any such attempt which involved the use of agents who may not be fully aware of the dangers to which they are exposed, of which my hon. Friend has given a striking example, and who may themselves be subject to exploitation and misled as to the true implications of what they are doing.
As I have suggested, certain practices are prohibited by the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. It is also possible that some of the more irresponsible and ridiculous claims which might be made would come within the scope of the Trades Descriptions Act, 1968 or the Fair Trading Bill, which is now before Parliament—[Laughter.] This is a serious point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will weigh it carefully.
In this field, the difficulty is to control the objectionable elements in advertisements or actual practices, without unreasonably hampering responsible treatment or experiment, whether or not it is within the National Health Service and whether or not the practitioner is medically qualified. I am sure that this debate has been useful in alerting the House and public opinion to the dangers inherent in the practices to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. It may well be that public opinion will prove a more flexible and potent weapon in combating them than direct Government action.
Nevertheless, I propose to consult my colleagues and to seek any expert advice which may be necessary on whether, and if so what, limits should be set by Government action on sex therapy services outside the National Health Service which are organised and offered to the public.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is not generally the practice to call a right hon. Member after the Minister has spoken. If it is just a question, I am sure that the Minister would not mind answering, but in fairness to the many hon. Members who have debates down, I think that we should get on once the Minister has replied.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING SERVICES (WEST COUNTRY)

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I welcome this opportunity to raise a matter of the greatest concern not only to my constituents but to the constituents of many of my hon. Friends in the West Country. This is the very vexed question of the BBC changing its regional broadcasts from medimum wave to VHF.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is no stranger to this problem. We all appreciate the great concern and interest that he has taken over this difficult matter. But it is a measure of the concern that we have and that our constituents throughout the West Country share. I would particularly associate in these expressions of concern my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who is unfortunately unable to be here today, but who asked me particularly to associate him with this concern.
May I invite the Minister to put himself in the position of our constituents? They, in the West Country, have enjoyed for many years regional broadcasts by the BBC. I know that it is possible—the BBC itself has done it—to criticise the

scope and width of their regional broadcasts, as in the famous remark about "from Bexhill to Bodmin". But at the same time, this is preferable to a purely national service, and within that very wide regional area, nevertheless local flavour is injected into a considerable number of programmes.
I am thinking not just of the regional news or the weather forecast, or the farming programmes, or "The West at Westminster", which we know well, or "Today in the South and West". They managed in a very clever way, considering width of the area which they were covering, to make people feel that the programme concerned them and their community.
Now the situation has changed. Suddenly, at a time when they thought that all was progress and for better services, people find that the regional programmes have disappeared; they are left searching their wavebands to see how they can recapture the programmes they enjoyed. They find to their surprise that they no longer exist on the medium wave. It is fair to say that they no longer exist on the radio that they own. They are told that these are now supplanted by local radio broadcasts on medium wave which emanate entirely from the major conurbations.
We would all recognise that this is a great improvement for those who live in the conurbations. This is not intended as any criticism of the local radio stations that are in existence. Indeed, I pay tribute to Radio Bristol, which is providing a much better and obviously more local service than was ever possible under regional radio. But the problem is that far too few people are able to receive it. Fortunately, I am able to receive it and it is from personal experience that I pay tribute to the quality of the broadcasting it is now doing.
But on the present transmitter that Radio Bristol has available, which I understand is on a temporary site, far too few people are able to receive it. So, quite naturally, they complain. Something has been taken away which they valued and, for them, nothing has been put in its place. To that understandable complaint, what reply do they receive?
The first thing is that they find themselves caught in a crossfire between the


BBC and the Ministry. The BBC says that it is all the Government's fault and that if it had been allowed to proceed with its 40 local radio stations, all would have been well. With respect to the BBC, that argument is unsustainable, because the only effect of the 40 radio stations which would have been felt in the West Country was the establishment of one station at Plymouth with the outside possibility of one at Exeter as well. That would have been small comfort to a considerable number of my constituents.
On the Ministry side, the Government point to the problems that exist on medium wave, and are likely to increase after the Copenhagen Convention, and the difficulties of retaining for this country the same share of medium wave frequencies we enjoy at present. The Government say that it is in the interests of all concerned to move to VHF. That is hardly advice of much comfort to a considerable number of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends.
It is difficult to be precise about this, but there seems to be evidence to suggest that the percentage of VHF sets in the West Country is lower than anywhere else in the country, and considering that a very substantial number of the people who particularly value these broadcasts are pensioners and low wage earners, it is of small comfort to say that they must buy a new radio which will receive VHF. Even that advice is not total because there is considerable doubt whether even VHF offers adequate coverage, with the problems of geography we have in the West Country.
There is an important question that needs to be answered by my right hon. Friend. I plead some background knowledge on this matter. We know why it was necessary for these frequencies to be changed. We knew that ultimately they would be changed. But what is a great disappointment to even those of us who were very closely concerned is the considerable hiatus that exists. If we had switched from a situation in which the regional programmes had been supplanted by an adequate service of local broadcasting, that would have been one thing; but the frequencies have been removed and, over a great part of the country, nothing has been put in their place.
Moreover, I am more fortunate than many of my hon. Friends in that part of my constituency can receive Radio Bristol. But Radio Bristol has switched to medium wave on a temporary transmitter. We are sure that reception will better when Radio Bristol is able to obtain a new site and to get a new transmitter installed. It was most unfortunate that this switch was made before proper facilities were ready not only for the Bristol transmitter but for the more ample coverage of local radio stations that is envisaged in the Sound Broadcasting Act.
I appreciate that now we move on to very difficult ground because, as those of us who worked in Committee on that Act will recall, there is a serious difficulty for us, as laymen, to present detailed arguments on this very complicated matter of frequency planning. We are very much at the mercy of the experts in the Ministry and the BBC and IBA. Therefore, this is an extremely difficult matter on which to put forward suggestions that do not appear amateur. But it is a measure of our concern over the matter that we are anxious to try any avenue that may help in this problem.
I understand that the answer has been given that it was necessary to re-allocate these frequencies well ahead of the time of their use so that all the technical preparation work could be done and the stations would be able to start up at the approved time. But is it necessary for these frequencies to be totally used at all times throughout the intervening period? Is not there some possibility that they could be shared with the engineers in some way? The regional programmes are regional opt-outs from a national broadcasting service and occur only at certain times. There are plenty of times during the day when the national service broadcasts on the national wavelength are perfectly adequate. Is there not some way in which these frequencies could be shared in the interim period? Is there not also a possibility of some more flexible system?
A further possibility, which would greatly ease the problem in my constituency although perhaps not in my hon. Friends is if Radio Bristol could be extended more widely. Is it practical to envisage some form of mobile repeater stations which could be established economically, one or two of which could make


a dramatic difference to the reception range and would enable Radio Bristol more than to supplant anything regional radio was ever able to do?
Those are merely two suggestions of possible areas for investigation. But the difficulty which we as backbenchers face, which is faced by our constituents, is to argue what are highly technical matters. What we look for here is a feeling that from my right hon. Friend and right through the Ministry, the BBC and the IBA, there is demonstrated a concern for the problems these changes have caused. At present the West Country is a little punch drunk from what is happening to its reception and the services it receives.
I have limited my remarks exclusively to radio, but I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend at Question Time last week about television. I asked for some protection for the West Country from the over-burden of Welsh programmes which seem to creep into every transmission to which one switches. We receive them on television and on radio. At present, many of our constituents are unable to receive programmes which are designed for them from the Mendip transmitter and are forced to receive programmes from Wenvoe. It is adding insult to injury when the programme they receive is inadequate and, when they receive it, is in the Welsh language. In this situation some of our constituents think that they are moving into a very mad world indeed.
I know that my right hon. Friend has spent many hours and clays attempting to find an adequate solution. I have not tried to gloss over the difficulties which changes of frequency of this kind entail. From previous experience, I know the difficulties which the Government now face and which the country will face with the problem of medium wavelengths. The right answer is for everyone to buy VHF sets. That is no doubt the logical answer in the long run. But it is not a practical proposition in the short term for pensioners and people on low wages.
It is very much as a layman that I plead with my right hon. Friend, on behalf of a considerable number of people in the West Country who have lost something they valued and who are not getting anything in its place, to consider whether there is not some way in which a compromise can be reached which, in

the medium term at least, could restore programmes to our constituents which are now being transmitted solely on VHF.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome this opportunity—thanks to the industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King)—to raise again a problem which has undoubtedly been a source of much irritation and disappointment in the West Country, namely the withdrawal of regional programmes on the Radio 4 medium wave network and the confining of them to VHF only. This subject has prompted as large a number of letters and representations to me as any single regional or local issue since I came to this House.
I fully recognise that the decision was taken following the proposals first outlined in the BBC's publication, "Broadcasting in the Seventies". The BBC intended then to establish about 40 local radio stations which would transmit on both the medium network and VHF. In the West Country it was thought that one of these stations would go to Plymouth and that we would have one other. In reality, largely for financial reasons, this strategy has been abandoned and the BBC operates instead just 20 local stations. In addition, the country is now to have a local commercial radio system of possibly 60 stations, administered by the IBA. One of these local commercial stations will be based at Plymouth—or so we are led to believe. This may or may not be acceptable to urban areas, like the Plymouth catchment area—I speak largely from the point of view of my constituents in Cornwall, a rural area, where it is not acceptable.
I make no apology for reminding my right hon. Friend—I mentioned this point at Question time last week—that I represent a low-income area with an above-average number of persons living on retirement or some kind of fixed income. As my hon. Friend has said the region has a distinctive character and identity. I believe that sound radio and local newspapers still play a very meaningful rôle as news media in the South-West. There is a degree of dependence on sound radio possibly equalled only in other similar rural areas. Thus, an important service has been taken away as a result of this decision.
I appreciate that it is difficult to quantify, but I think that it is true to say that a below-average proportion of listeners in the South-West have VHF. Indeed, I did a little exercise a few weeks ago, looking into the costs of purchasing VHF sets to anyone listening in Liskeard, the geographical centre of my constituency. For the ordinary small portable set, capable of receiving VHF, the lowest possible price from the local dealer was £14·95. If one went to Plymouth, about 15 miles away, and purchased it there at a larger store, the price would be reduced to about £8·95. For the ordinary table model radio the comparative figures were £35·85 in the local Liskeard shop and £25·90 in the Plymouth store. So a significant amount of money is involved.
For these reasons, someone—the Government, the BBC or the IBA—has an obligation to persons living in rural areas such as my colleagues and I attempt to serve. We are told that it is a question of wavelengths. Like my hon. Friend I am but a layman, but in this technical age it should be possible to find a solution, if only to cover the transitional period. If that could be done I assure my right hon. Friend that it would give genuine satisfaction to listeners in the South-West.
I also want to refer to the quality of television reception. Because of the nature of the terrain there are certain pockets throughout the region in which television reception is lacking, to say the least. The requirement here is to evolve as quickly as possible the proposed network of UHF relay stations. In my constituency it is intended at some stage that three should be established, one to serve Gunnislake and the Tamar Valley, another to serve Looe and the adjacent coastal area and the third to serve Bodmin itself. It would be helpful to viewers in that part of the country if my right hon. Friend could ask, or use his influence with, the BBC and the IBA to set a firm time scale as to their intentions to establish these relay stations. It is a permanent source of dissatisfaction when one pays a national fee, and so on, but in return does not get the quality of service which people in other parts of the country enjoy.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these two aspects in mind.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) for raising this matter, which is causing a great deal of distress in the South-West. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the original decision to plan "Broadcasting for the Seventies" on the assumption that most people by now would have changed to VHF receivers, it is clear that the withdrawal of medium wave regional broadcasting in September was bitterly resented by large numbers of listeners in Devon, Cornwall and other parts of the region. I confirm what my hon. Friends have said about the large number of representations made to us by people from all over the region. I have here a typical letter, from a doctor who has been involved in caring for disabled and elderly people. He writes:
I am a retired surgeon but at present I am working for the Department of Health carrying out examinations of disabled people. Several of these people have complained bitterly to me this week saying that they miss their little hit of news and local gossip. Most of them cannot afford to send out and buy expensive VHF sets and they feel cut off from what is going on around them. I assure you that these people are mostly confined either to their house or to their bed.
I am sure that my right lion. Friend will also have received large numbers of protest letters from individuals, and organisations, from local authorities and social service committees, all concerned at the deprivation from some 70–80 per cent. of our population of local news and broadcasting. Indeed, even those who have VHF sets are often unable to get good reception. In this modern technological era we seem unable to continue what, up to now in the South-West peninsula, has been an excellent and worthwhile regional radio system.
As has been said, we have been told by the BBC and its chairman that it is mainly the Government's fault for stopping the further 20 BBC local radio stations which were planned and instead creating a further 60 commercial stations. That argument or excuse does not hold water. Regional opt-out programmes were planned to go by the BBC, and by the mid-1970s it would probably have provided only a limited-range station at


Plymouth for medium wave local broadcasts. Major parts of Devon and Cornwall and all car-drivers would still have been unable to receive local news, sports, weather and agricultural programmes.
In July, we were told by BBC Bristol that even the VHF regional opt-out programmes would continue only until April 1973. Following the rumpus kicked up by people in the West Country it has been announced that a daily breakfast-time magazine programme will, however, be provided on VHF from Plymouth. So the few of our listeners who get good enough reception can listen to about 50 minutes of local material between 6.50 a.m. and 9 a.m., but will miss "Today in the South-West", the "Mid-day Parade" ¾-hour programme. Gone will be these valuable weekly farming and—dare I say it?—political commentaries from Westminster. It is a sad and sorry state of affairs.
Things will, of course, eventually improve. Eventually we shall have local commercial and BBC radio programmes from Plymouth and possibly other stations in Devon and Cornwall. Our main concern is the immediate future. We fully appreciate the technical difficulties facing my right hon. Friend in trying to find a way out of the dilemma. We know that he desperately wants to help us. The medium wavelengths available are oversubscribed, and are being used for the second overseas channel to Europe and as back-up to the 20 BBC local stations, and for the commercial network of 60 stations, yet between now and 1976—the year we might begin to receive our new local stations—something has to be done to help the elderly and disabled people who are so dependent on radio for their local news. We have put suggestions to my right hon. Friend, which he has kindly agreed to examine. May I repeat them and add a further idea for him to consider?
First, as an interim measure for two or three years, could we not have the use, during one or two hours in the daylight period when interference is at its minimum, of either of the existing Scottish or Northern Ireland frequencies. A lunchtime hour, say, would probably not interfere with those remote stations and would tide us over for local news broadcasting on the medium wavelength until 1975 or 1976. That would tide us over,

for local news broadcasting on the medium wavelength, until 1975 or 1976.
Another alternative which we have put forward and which I should like to be considered is the use of the commercial frequencies until the commercial stations in our region need them. I and many others connected with the broadcasting problem in the South-West believe that a short-term solution can be found if the Government and the BBC engineers and experts put their mind to it. Meantime, the change to VHF sets will continue.
The BBC was wrong in basing its original "Broadcasting in the 1970s" strategy on the assumption that everyone would fall into place and would purchase VHF sets by 1972. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said, many people cannot afford them. They are extremely expensive in the remoter areas. Many areas do not receive VHF well enough. Retailers in my constituency have informed me that a good set can be purchased for £10 to £12. Perhaps the BBC will consider encouraging elderly pensioners to use some of their Christmas bonus to purchase VHF sets. If they are to have local news only on VHF, information this Christmas on the price and availability of receivers will perhaps be of help.
I ask the Minister to continue his efforts to find a solution to this problem. It is a real and human problem for many thousands of West Country men and women.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I endorse and underline everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) has said.
The BBC has badly miscalculated, for a number of reasons. It miscalculated the strength of feeling in the West Country about the regional programme. I do not agree that bceause the area covered stretched from Bexhill to Penzance it was not a truly regional programme. It was a regional programme; it was liked and enjoyed, and it was useful. I cite what happened in and around Somerset, particularly in my constituency, last weekend, when there was a great deal of flooding. We should have liked to hear where the flooding was and to know


which areas were worst hit, and whether special measures were needed. That is the sort of thing which we learned in the past from the local BBC medium-wave news.
The programme is badly missed, particularly by elderly people. Communications in the West Country are not good. People do not get around very much. They do not often go into the towns. They depend for their local news not only on the weekly local newspaper but particularly on the daily medium-wave programmes.
The BBC also miscalculated because it should have realised that it would take much longer for elderly people and people on low incomes to invest in VHF sets. Many people have written to me saying, "We have a perfectly good set. Why should we be forced to spend what for us is a lot of money on a new set in order to get the new programme?" The excuses which have been given are not nearly good enough. Explanations such as "Listeners generally will get more radio broadcasting, and, what is more important, most of them will be able to choose to listen to an alternative radio voice" are not much comfort to some old age pensioners because it will be a long time before they will be able to make such a choice. Also, it will be expensive for them.
I know that the BBC and the Ministry are faced with a dilemma, but they must find a way out. They must not simply throw up their hands in horror and say that nothing can be done because the wavelengths are wanted elsewhere. There is a gap for the new station to come in and they must try to fill it.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The question of responsibility has been muddied in recent months. Therefore, it is desirable to re-state it. The responsibility for what is contained in a given programme broadcast on a given frequency is that of the BBC; it is not that of the Minister. Therefore, criticisms aimed at what is or is not broadcast on a given frequency should be directed to the BBC, however great may be the smoke screen put up by the BBC in an endeavour to deflect the lightning on to other conductors.
On the other hand, the question of the allocation of frequencies properly rests with the Minister, and I do not doubt that it lies within his power to say to the BBC, "You are not using the frequencies which you have abandoned. Neither are the commercial companies which have not yet taken them up. You will therefore continue to provide services on these frequencies for the people who are used to listening to them until there is a replacement commercial service". That is crystal clear, and it has not been done. It should be done and it must be done. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister say that it will be done.
I do not want to lend my name to the encouragement of people to spend money which they cannot afford on buying VHF receiving sets incapable of receiving programmes that they do not want to receive. The smoke screen put up by the BBC and, to some extent, by the Department, that all will be well if people buy VHF sets, may lead people into buying sets and then discovering that they cannot receive the programmes and that, even if they can receive them, they are not the programmes which they want to receive. We must guard against that.
Let us come down to earth. Who should do what? My right hon. Friend the Minister should be adamant that the BBC should continue to provide for at least two years more the service expected by its customers who pay for their licences. There is no reason why it should not do that except its own unwillingness. The wavelengths are not being used by commercial broadcasters and it is wrong for the BBC to try to hide behind the proposition that they are. If they were being used, people would be able to pick up the alternative service. The people's complaint is not that they do not like the alternative service but that there is no service at all.
When the commercial companies are operating it will still lamentably be the case that with the low-powered transmission from Plymouth there will be many areas which could receive the BBC broadcasts if it were still making them—and it is not making them, but not because of the Government—but which will not be able to receive them because the volume will not be sufficient. They will be of


too short a range. Therefore, we need either more commercial stations to fill the gaps or an instruction to be given to the replacement commercial services that the broadcasts will be of such intensity that it will be possible for areas to pick them up which before could receive BBC programmes. Therefore, people will at least have another service in place of the one which they have lost.
I have emphasised this matter because quite untruthful statements and misleading smoke screens have been issued about what can or cannot be done and where the responsibility lies. It is true that in a couple of years there will be an international reallocation of the medium wave band. It is also true that broadcasting does not stop at national frontiers and we cannot therefore put an electrical cordon sanitaire round the United Kingdom which prevents us from being interfered with by broadcasters on our wavelength or on what we would wish to be our wavelength emanating from other countries. Therefore, agreement must be reached.
In the 1940s, in the dislocation following the last war, a very generous allocation of medium wavelengths was achieved. If one were a gambler one would gamble that however fiercely the Minister fights to retain the medium waveband for Britain he will not be completely successful in retaining it. But none of us wishes to weaken his hand in the negotiations by predicting that he will not be able to keep most of what he has already. The more steel he shows towards the BBC in fulfilling the responsibilities which it still has and which it still has the capacity to honour the more seriously will the negotiators he has to meet in 1974 regard his representations.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, but I must take issue with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) about their suggestion that the BBC should be instructed to use the medium wave frequencies which will ultimately go to local commercial radio until local commercial radio takes over. It is totally improper to suggest that the BBC should be told that at some point

it will lose the wavelengths anyway but must keep the hot-water bottle in the bed until the next occupant moves in. The BBC must think of providing an alternative service rather than a caretaker service.
I am sorry to see my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench, because only 14 months ago he went to Cornwall, where he was regarded as the great hope of our industrial future. Today, in Cornish eyes he is the hatchet man of our leisure and pleasure. We cannot accept the arrogant philosophy of his Department and the BBC "Let them eat cake", because there is a moral responsibility to the old people and to people on low incomes who, as recently as six months ago, purchased medium wave sets under the impression that they would satisfy their demands for eight or nine years. I regard the events of the six months subsequent to the sale of those sets as being similar to the dubious morality of the gipsy tinker who goes round the country selling galvanised buckets knowing that he is about to throw stones down every well. There is therefore a moral responsibility on the BBC and on the Government to ensure that Cornwall has a full and good medium wave service.
It is not sufficient for the statisticians and engineers to look at their dials and say that it is not possible to use Start Point at reduced power to take on some of the Northern Ireland and Scottish frequencies without interfering with their reception, without carrying out physical tests. I understand that such tests have not been carried out. As someone who has had the misfortune to act as a reporter in the vicinity of Start Point, I can say that time and again we have been assured by the BBC engineers that there can be no leakage of sound. Yet we have wasted hours on wet and windy days trying to get rid of the sound of Radio 2 through our headphones as a result of some mysterious leakage which defies the knowledge of the engineers.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that a practical test will be carried out to assess the reality of our proposition. I hope that he will serve our interests and, even at this late stage, will find some salvation for the medium wave listeners in the West Region.

5.50 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: The trouble is that this debate is taking place months too late. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and I put down an Early Day Motion on this subject in July before a decision was made to try to generate pressure on the then Minister to say to the BBC that the decision should not go ahead and that a fresh look should be taken at the peculiar problems of the South-West.
The first and most important thing to recognise is that the regional broadcasts are continuing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The essential point which must be made is that we in the South-West consider that we have many of the characteristics which those nations possess. I realise that Northern Ireland is only a province. We consider that we have a culture and a heritage which is very different from the central parts of England.
It seems that there is an inability on the part of the Government and the BBC to recognise the real problems that occur in the South-West. We consider that we are a different region. We are obviously a different region in geographical terms. That is one of the central problems. That is why it is difficult, because of the distances, to ensure that we get the coverage that we think is necessary.
The South-West is as one on this matter. If Plymouth gets commercial radio or in the long term gets BBC local radio, I will still urge that something should be done about Cornwall and Devon. I believe that the identity of the regions will be maintained only if we marry the urban and the rural areas. The cities too have a responsibility to ensure that the people in a remote farm, who cannot afford VHF facilities, should be given the facilities of regional radio.
There has been a certain amount of of argument over the allocation of blame, but I think that the blame lies on both the BBC and the present Government. It has been pretended that it is all the fault of the BBC. But the problem has been strongly exacerbated by the decision to have commercial radio. The commercial radio debate was dogmatic. I can still be convinced of the need to have advertising for local radio. I am not necessarily against it in principle. But

the way that the Bill was pushed through the House and the way the Government voted for it was on a commercial free doctrine, that there has to be advertising and free enterprise in radio. That was always questionable, particularly in terms of regional radio.
Now the chickens have come home to roost. We are now facing the consequences of the Sound Broadcasting Act. It is, however, not that there were no faults before. The first fault was the BBC's document "Broadcasting in the Seventies".

Mr. Tom King: Allow me to put the record straight on the Sound Broadcasting Act. I had a closer acquaintance with it than the hon. Gentleman. I sat throughout the Committee stage. The object of the Act was to establish in this country a system of local broadcasting financed by advertising, thus making it possible to introduce 60 stations in addition to the twenty which the BBC were proposing to establish. In other words, 80 local radio stations were to be introduced, making a service that would otherwise not have been possible. It was to be an expansion of the radio service without a substantial increase in the licence fee.

Dr. Owen: I have read the hon. Gentleman's speeches. I will quote from a letter which I received from Lord Hill, dated 3rd August, which says:
The BBC proposed to replace its regional radio services in England with about 40 local radio stations, which would cover the entire country on medium wave and VHF.
I am not denying that the BBC has also tried to make the Government a scapegoat, but the consequence of introducing commercial radio was to alter the frequencies. The frequencies were changed so that the patchwork which we have now does not cover the entire country. That must be accepted. There are great chunks in the South-West which will not be covered. All the other parts of central England will by and large get ample coverage when commercial radio starts.
Before I was interrupted, I was saying that my main criticism was the BBC's attitude in setting up forty stations. I think that was wrong. It must be remembered that the BBC's regional staff in Bristol fought hard against the proposals.


They pointed out that the BBC's Western region had its own identity. They were strongly critical. We were all aware of the well-argued cases put forward by the BBC employees. They put up vigorous opposition. I always hoped that the last Government would insist that there was some regional broadcasting in the South-West. We then had the commitment of the new Government to commercial radio and their interruptions of the frequencies.
The frequency problem, which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly pointed out, is a Government responsibility. There is no question but that the Government are sitting on a whole range of wavelengths at the top end of the scale, and there is no sufficient justification for not releasing them. There are lots of vague questions about emergency frequencies that must be retained for the police. I should like to hear from the Government whether they are prepared to examine some of the emergency frequencies and see whether they can be made available.
I now return to the essential issue, which is what can be done now. The South-West expects to be treated in the same way as Scotland, Wales and Ireland. That is the basic issue. We want to have regional broadcasting, whatever is done elsewhere. If local stations are set up, that is all right. But our region has a separate identity. My argument is that the Government have an overall responsibility for ensuring, under the corporation's statutory set-up, that certain basic factors are observed. For instance, it would be impossible for the BBC to withdraw Scottish broadcasting without the House insisting that it had the right to tell the BBC, through the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, that that was not to be done. The South-West happens to be a smaller and poorer region but it has the same problems as the other areas.
This debate demonstrates that we are united in our belief that the South-West regional broadcasting system must be reinstated. Of course, it no longer exists. How the Minister will do that, with all the frequencies for commercial radio, I do not know. It is an extremely difficult problem. I have already indicated to

him that there are spare frequencies available, and we need to look at them.
Some frequencies are reserved for NATO. I have long experience that the Ministry of Defence will always say that everything is inviolate. However, I suggest that there is ample room for us to look at a few of its frequencies.
The Minister will be destroying his own case if he does not admit that in part the present situation has been affected by the decision to go for commercial radio. The Minister knows that. His other responsibility is to pin some responsibility on the BBC's policy of splitting up broadcasting into 40 regions. That is wrong. It should have kept eight regions, as with television. The BBC should at least now listen to the comments that have been expressed throughout the South-West peninsula.
It is important that the BBC should look at the long-term situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), that we should not advocate what might be called a caretaker situation. The BBC must not take on a frequency band for some limited time and then, when an entrepreneur fixes up a commercial radio station lose it. It must be offered a more long-term situation than that. It must be offered the possiblity of reinstating South-West regional broadcasting on a regional basis. That is what we are asking the Minister to do today.
I must confess that I had a very disappointing reply from the Chairman of the BBC. I asked whether there was a possibility of setting up a local broadcasting station in Plymouth, without increasing the licence fee, and he said that there was not. We have got to face the fact that if we want good broadcasting we may have to pay for it. The BBC has celebrated 50 years of broadcasting with a great fanfare of trumpets. I think we have learned from the past 30 years of broadcasting that if we want good broadcasting we have got to pay for it.
Then there is the problem of the old-age pensioners. I suggest that the £10 bonus for pensioners should become permanent and that an element of choice should be introduced to enable those who do not want to receive television or radio programmes to keep the money. The


payment of this bonus would be a much better scheme than requiring old-age pensioners to claim a separate deduction. This would be a method of reducing the burden which falls on old-age pensioners each year in meeting their licence fees.
If we want good broadcasting in the South-West we are prepared, if necessary, to pay an increased fee. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot produce definite proposals at the moment, will bear in mind that the South-West region is very different from the East Anglian or North-East regions. Many people say that this is not so and that it will be possible to set up a commercial radio service with a range which will cover the whole area. We in the South-West cannot have such a service, even if we had local radio, in Plymouth, Taunton, Exeter or even Truro. There are still areas which can- not be covered. We want a separate system, and we want part of the medium wavelength.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I apologise for not being here for the early part of the debate; my Select Committee has been sitting and so I have not had an opportunity of hearing the whole debate. No doubt other hon. Members have introduced many of the points that I had intended to raise and, indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has mentioned many of the issues which have been exercising the minds of Members who represent the West County.
It is obvious that the BBC believes that the VHF band gives better fidelity than do the medium or long wavelengths. The BBC goes even further and says that it knows what is best for people, that they ought to listen to VHF and that if they want programmes with a local flavour they will have to buy VHF sets in order to receive such programmes. I think the matter is as simple as that.
One cannot absolve my right hon. Friend's Department from the excuse about which I have complained for many years. The Department usually makes a technical excuse. Yet when one talks to the experts from other parts of the world they express the opinion that there is no reason at all why, with sophisticated aerial structures, with directional aerials and by restricting the output, the medium wavelength could not be dupli-

cated in various parts of the country, radiating different programmes, and yet, because of the set-up, not causing interference one with the other. The BBC does this with a number of wavelengths. Therefore, the technical excuse is overused.
When the BBC originally expressed the belief that it could force people to listen only on VHF, particularly for local radio programmes, it soon found that it had a small listening public and these programmes had to be reinforced by the use of the medium wavelength. If the BBC has found from experience that it can get an adequate listening public only by duplicating on the medium waveband, it must also accept that there are many parts of the West Country where people cannot afford to buy a VHF set in order to receive the service. If the BBC would drop the technical excuses and consider the matter seriously, I am sure there is no reason why we in the West Country should not continue to enjoy a regional programme on both VHF and the medium wavelength.
Most of us have constituents who cannot get BBC2 television. There are many areas where it is extremely difficult to get BBC1. I know that there are programmes in the pipeline to provide more transmitters and so on, but at the moment many people in the West Country ask themselves what they are receiving for the licence fee which they have to pay.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In order to avoid confusion, may I point out to my hon. Friend that there is now no fee payable for sound broadcasting? The only fee payable is for television broadcasting. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) did not seem to know this when he spoke of increasing the fee for sound broadcasting.

Mr. Mawby: We are now getting on to the financial side of the matter. All the services operated by the BBC, whether radio or television, have to be paid for out of the licence fee that we pay. There are parts of the country which receive a greatly reduced television and radio service, and this is nobody's fault. There are difficulties of terrain and so forth. But instead of the BBC spending £5 million-plus a year on local radio, which I believe could be done adequately by commercial radio, that money could be


spent on what I believe to be a more valuable service, namely a regional service.
I do not think anybody would want to go back to pre-"Broadcasting in the Seventies". The BBC obviously has very good reasons for moving away from regional services and regional administration. What we ask, however, is that those services which are so valuable to our constituents should continue and that they should be available on the wavelengths that our constituents' radio sets are capable of receiving.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for my inability to be present at the beginning of the debate. I hope I shall be forgiven if I say a brief word about television services on my side of the Bristol Channel, which, surprisingly enough, come to us in Welsh. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) apprised me of what he was going to say on the subject of the medium wave local programmes, and I support him in his endeavours.
In the north of Somerset we are in a particularly special difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the problem which has been put to him on many occasions in this House and elsewhere. The mast at Cardiff. by the very nature of the geography, broadcasts a stronger and better signal to north Somerset than does the mast at Penn on the Mendips for West Country programmes from Bristol.
It has been said many times that this is a political matter to be resolved by the Secretary of State for Wales, who should decide whether or not Welsh programmes should be broadcast. I suggest that this is not wholly the case. The Welsh programmes are transmitted from Cardiff on a slightly different frequency. It should be possible to put both the BBC and ITV programmes on to one frequency. That would require a special arrangement whereby the two channels shared a Welsh programme. When one considers that only 25 per cent. of the Welsh people speak Welsh, that proposal should achieve a considerable amount of support in Wales as well.
There are substantial technical reasons why the creation of booster stations is

delayed on our side of the Channel. I understand that there is a chain reaction. As each transmitter comes into service, trials have to be carried out to see how the region is affected.
I make two suggestions. The first is that the question of putting both Welsh channels on one frequency from the Cardiff transmitter should be investigated. I have it on good authority that it is technically possible, but that it would require a special agreement between the IBA and the BBC. Secondly, priority should be given to setting up booster stations in north Somerset.

6.12 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): Hon. Members representing the West Country who have spoken in this debate have left me in no doubt about the strength of feeling of their constituents. I was in any case already substantially well aware of it. Not only has this been a matter which they have pressed on me in the House on other occasions, but I have the advantage of living in the West Country. I recognise how concerned people are that they have lost part of the regional opt-out programmes of the BBC to which they have become so fully accustomed.
Hon. Members substantially understand the complexities of frequency allocation. I find it extremely difficult to follow. I suspect there are people outside the House who equally find it a somewhat confusing subject. I ask for the tolerance of hon. Members if I take a little trouble to give some of the background leading up to the present situation.
Hon. Members are aware of the international situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who opened this short debate, referred to it. The provision of broadcasting services depends on the availability of frequencies. Frequencies are scarce. They are needed not only for broadcasting but for a host of other services, some of which were instanced by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). They are needed for aeronautical and navigational services, ship-to-shore and satellite communications, for the armed forces and police, and for ambulance and taxi services. The emergency services use the VHF band rather than the medium wave band.
It is essential that frequencies should be allocated in an orderly way, both nationally and internationally, to obtain maximum use and to prevent services causing interference to others. That is why one has to build up this complex frequency plan. Interference, if unchecked, would soon make all frequencies useless. International co-operation is necessary and, as regards the use of frequencies, is on the whole very good. Once international agreement has been reached on the frequency bands which should be used for broadcasting further agreements may be necessary to assign particular frequency channels to individual countries. In Europe, with so many densely populated countries in a comparatively small area, there is fierce coin-petition for the available frequencies and particular care is needed to ensure that services do not cause interference to others.
In the United Kingdom we use the broadcasting frequencies allocated to us as intensely as possible. First, we must decide what sort of broadcasting services we want in this country. Then we must draw up frequency plans for the country as a whole to provide coverage for the greatest possible number of people. The provision of broadcasting services in any area cannot be considered in isolation. The situation in one part of the country is, in terms of frequency planning, very much bound up with the total plan for the country as a whole. In this country we have at our disposal no fewer than four separate national radio services transmitted on medium or low frequencies, three of which are duplicated on VHF. There has been skilful deployment of medium frequencies. As a result, the BBC was able to provide at different times of the day regional variations, which are sometimes called opt-outs, in different parts of the country on Radio 4. That led to the provision of the regional programme for the South and West to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater referred, the famous Bexhill to Bodmin service. There was also one service especially for the South-West which originated in Plymouth. That was transmitted only on VHF.
With the advent of local radio it was clear that a new frequency plan was needed. If local radio was to be readily received it had to be available on medium

frequencies as well as on VHF. In the circumstances something had to go. The BBC in its publication "Broadcasting in the Seventies" pointed out that the regional divisions for radio in England were based not on any community of interests such as that which has been so well described in relation to the South and West during the course of this debate. They were based on technical considerations. It was the corporation's view that if something had to go it should be regional variations. Thus a new medium frequency plan was drawn up. Frequencies previously used to transmit Radio 4 were diverted to local radio while at the same time improvements were made to the BBC external services.
The proposal concerning the external services was made by the BBC and accepted by the previous Government. It was considered extremely important that this should come forward, particularly at this juncture in our international relationships. That was one of the reasons for redeployment. Another reason—I do not burke it—was the policy in our White Paper on an alternative service on radio broadcasting to introduce local commercial radio. My hon. Friends have described the increasing value which will come to people as this service spreads throughout the country.

Mr. John Pardoe: In Cornwall?

Sir J. Eden: In various parts of the country. I think that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton gave the impression that the BBC's 40 stations, if it had gone ahead with the 40, would have covered the whole country. But that is not so. They would have served only about 80 per cent. of the population. There would still have been large gaps in the coverage of some rural areas, and even when the commercial local radio programme is completed, together with the BBC's 20 local radio stations, there will still be gaps in the total coverage.

Dr. David Owen: The BBC's position was put to me clearly in a letter from the chairman in which he used these words,
… would cover the entire country on medium wave and VHF".
I notice that there was that difference in the briefing which the Minister put out, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman


is certain that what he now says is absolutely correct.

Sir J. Eden: I am as certain as can be but, now that I hear the hon. Member quote from a letter, I shall look at the matter again. My information—I have no reason to doubt it—is that if the plan for the 40 stations had been carried through, it would have served about 80 per cent. of the population. Either way, however, one has to recognise that there would still have been substantial gaps in the rural areas, and that is really the force of the point I am making.
We decided to go ahead with the new frequency plan and, in consequence, the regional variations on Radio 4, such as they are, are now transmitted only on VHF.
This is obviously not the whole story. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater referred to BBC Bristol. This station is at present served, as he said, by a transmitter on a temporary site, and it may well be that it could become even better in the future. Already a large number of listeners are served or are able to receive BBC broadcasts in the Bristol area. Probably about 700,000 are able to receive BBC Bristol on medium frequency, and it is transmitted also on VHF. Already, therefore, it goes quite far afield.
My hon. Friend suggested that it might be possible to extend the coverage still further by means of mobile repeater stations or transmitters. I am advised that this would require more frequencies and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. to find them for this purpose. However, I note the suggestion which my hon. Friend has put to me, and I shall have it looked at more closely. My initial reaction is to say that it is unlikely to prove a possible solution, but I shall, if I may, let him have the information as soon as I have checked back on it more thoroughly.
The IBA also has plans to open its own local radio stations at Bristol and at Plymouth. The station in Plymouth is high on its list of priorities. I realise that these local radio stations, as they come forward, will by no means cover the whole of the area, but very many people, those concentrated within the conurbations or within the close vicinity, will be able to listen to them. I recognise never-

theless that that does not meet the case put to me today on behalf of those who live in the rural areas. I think that it will be virtually impossible to meet that particular requirement by means of the developing pattern of local radio on VHF. However, I am looking at a number of possibilities and I shall now indicate what they are.
Obviously, it would suit everybody if there were an inexhaustible reservoir of radio frequencies so that as many services could be provided as were required. My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asked why it was not possible to borrow some of the frequencies which are being planned for local radio stations. This has already been considered. Again, however, there are great difficulties. The only possible frequency for such a purpose would be the one required for the IBA local radio station for London. This is a frequency released by BBC.
It might conceivably be possible to use that frequency temporarily at high power in the West Country, for example at Start Point, but, obviously it could not be used when the IBA London station needs it for its own purposes. Moreover, since there is a considerable amount of planning and preparation to be done in the development of a programme of this kind, as is now beginning in relation to the pattern of commercial local radio stations, the period during which it could be made available, if it were decided to do so, would probably be rather restricted.
However, this is a matter which I shall follow up urgently immediately after the debate to see whether it offers a sensible solution, though I hasten to emphasise that, if it would fill in for only a few months—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and by the hon. Member for Sutton—it would not be worth while doing it on that basis.
As I say, frequencies are extremely scarce and it is essential that we use them so as to provide the widest choice of service for the greatest number of people. There is no denying that in the future we shall have to rely more and more on VHF reception. I think this is well recognised. It is certainly identified in the substantial number of VHF sets now being sold. The number goes up each year.
I realise that that is a totally inadequate answer to people with limited means who not only have a set to which, perhaps, they have become closely attached but who cannot afford to buy a VHF set. I understand that very well, especially as there are so many people of limited means in the rural areas of the West Country. But I am sure that the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton, though he did not quite put it this way, indicates the right approach, namely, to deal with the problem of elderly people on retirement incomes or of others with limited means by the methods which we usually adopt in the form of cash benefits rather than by seeking to give particular benefits in kind.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will he take up the question my hon. Friend raised about frequencies at present used for other public services in the VHF spectrum? I believe that they are in the band between 97 and 104MHz, and they are in what is normally recognised as the European public service broadcasting frequencies. Could they not be allocated to some local radio stations on VHV? There would be a considerable gain there, would there not?

Sir J. Eden: I did refer to that, though admittedly only in passing. One difficulty here is that I am pressed to make medium frequency rather than VHF broadcasts available. Second, I am looking at the availability of VHF frequencies, but even with the best will in the world, which I certainly bring to the consideration of this whole problem, any improvements in that direction are unlikely to benefit more than a comparatively small number of people or areas in relation to the totality of the South-West region.
Within a few years the international conference will be held on medium frequency allocation and it will draw up a new frequency plan for Europe. I cannot forecast the result of that conference except to say that it seems probable that in the United Kingdom we shall have to rely to a greater extent than we

do now for our radio reception on VHF transmission.
1 now turn to the question of television which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I understand very well the complaints of those who live on the Somerset coast of the Bristol Channel and who get their colour television from Wales. Obviously they would prefer to see the programmes intended for their own area as the majority of the 2 million people in the South-West do. BBC2 was fairly late in coming to that area but I think that recently the two broadcasting authorities have on the whole done fairly well by the South-West.
The provision of BBC2 has been followed very quickly by the other two programmes in colour. To provide colour television to 2 million people in the South-West, high-power stations have been opened at five places. By comparison the first four high-power stations to provide a colour service served more than 20 million people. There is, however, considerable difficulty here because an area like the South-West, with its hills and long coastlines of cliffs, is full of natural objects which can block off television signals. This is what happens on the north coast where the Mendip hills lie between the transmitter and the people living on the coast. As a result they get all their services across the water, because there are no barriers to signals from the transmitters at Wenvoe in Wales, and some of the programmes are in the Welsh language.
Obviously people would prefer to get the English programmes from Mendip or elsewhere. Some of these people will certainly benefit when the sixth high-power transmitter is opened at Huntshaw Cross near Barnstaple in about a year's time. Others, however, will probably have to wait a little longer. This is one of the difficulties of trying to work through, in as sensible a way as possible, a national programme for the development of UHF colour. In the end it is necessary to adopt some order of priorities. The provision of television services on UHF is in itself a major engineering project of considerable complexity. It is undertaken jointly by the two broadcasting authorities and it involves building more than 50 high-power stations and


over 400 low-power stations with separate transmitters at each of the stations for each of the three existing services.
About 5 million to 6 million people in this country—10 per cent. of the population—do not now receive colour television. Eighteen additional high-power stations and 400 additional low-power stations will have to be built to provide these services to them. Hon. Members have asked whether in the order of priorities the claims of certain parts of the South-West to have more than one service should be put ahead of claims from other parts of the country where there is no form of service. This is a dilemma with which I am frequently confronted not only from the South-West but from East Anglia and other parts of the country too.
This has been a valuable debate and it has emphasised the strength of feeling of the people in the South-West who have lost in particular the regional opt-outs on medium frequency radio. I can assure all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that I shall look carefully again at what has been said and at the technical suggestions to see whether there is some way in which we can relieve the situation.

Mr. Tom King: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that when he is examining these technical points he will bear in mind that because of the undulating character of the West Country he will not be dealing with an exact science in considering how frequencies will work and how good reception will be? Will he undertake to carry out experiments before suggestions are definitely rejected?

Sir J. Eden: I expect that my hon. Friend is referring to his suggestion of mobile transmitters and I shall look at that closely. If it is clear that there is some possibility of making provision in this direction I should wish to gauge the extent of what could be a quite sizeable investment programme by having some experiments on a more limited basis.

Mr. Pardoe: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 20 debates down for discussion. Mr. Hamling.

Orders of the Day — LONDON EDUCATION

6.37 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: May I say what a pleasure it is to have the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), to reply to the debate and may I add my personal congratulations to him on his elevation? It is not often that we get the opportunity to debate London's affairs. I do not know why that is, but we have Scottish debates and Welsh debates and yet London, which has a larger population than either of those two places put together, is not discussed very often. In a week or so we may be able to discuss unemployment and planning in London but tonight we have the opportunity to examine London education.
The standards of primary and secondary school and further education are, in general, higher in London than anywhere else in the country. I see my hon. Friend, the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) raising his eyebrows at that comment. I have taught in the provinces and also in London and I have studied education in Liverpool, where I started teaching about 40 years ago, and I can confirm that education in London is certainly of a much higher standard.
That does not mean that the people of London necessarily appreciate it or that they are content with it. They expect these high standards to be not only maintained but improved upon. Perhaps education in London is patchy and there may be areas where standards are much higher than in other parts and areas where there are deep-seated and intractable education problems. I hope that these will be mentioned in the debate.
It is fortunate that there has been published today the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion". To herald it, as do the two London evening papers, as a 10-year blueprint for education is to claim a great deal. We particularly welcome the aspects of the report which relate to nursery education. No doubt the House will be afforded the opportunity of debating the White Paper, particularly as it relates to nursery schools, and, I hope, the views of the Government on the James Report on the


future of further education and higher education. It is not my intention to say much about the White Paper, except in so far as it bears on some aspects of London education and the paragraphs dealing with increased expenditure in 1975–76 and 1976–77 on secondary education. The amount of the increase is totally inadequate, bearing in mind London's needs and what the White Paper says about them.
The White Paper takes a curious view of the nature of the developments in secondary education in the last 20 or 30 years. Paragraph 36, having mentioned the substantial capital resources which have been devoted to secondary education, goes on to say:
This process began with the reorganisation of all-age schools, first in rural and then in urban areas, in the 1950s and early 1960 …".
It is surprising that there should be no reference to the tremendous reorganisation of secondary school education on comprehensive lines. The paragraph continues:
The number of new permanent secondary school places provided since 1945 is now equivalent to about 75 per cent. of the secondary school population, only about 5 per cent. of which is housed in 19th century buildings.
Why was the nineteenth century chosen, bearing in mind that so many of the buildings in which I and other hon. Members have taught in London date from 1905 or 1906? The secondary schools — and primary schools — in London are predominantly in buildings of that vintage, not nineteenth century. I went to school in a nineteenth century building, but that is so long ago that I have almost forgotten it.
In talking about 1975–76, the White Paper says in paragraph 39:
These resources will enable progress to be resumed on the replacement or remodelling of the hardcore of old secondary school buildings …".
How many new schools can be built for £10 million and how many will be in London, particularly as the White Paper says that these old schools are to be found in all parts of the country but particularly, outside Greater London, in declining industrial areas in the Midlands, the North and Wales? Far be it from those of us who represent London con-

stituencies to deny opportunities for children in the older industrial areas in the North, South Wales and elsewhere, but a great many children in London go to old schools.
The White Paper contains no word on secondary reorganisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will deal with Charlton secondary school which I mentioned in a debate in November, 1971. There is no doubt that the Government have deliberately prevented the Inner London Education Authority from proceeding with the rebuilding of some older schools and the reorganisation of some secondary schools. A great deal has been said about Thomas Calton school in Southwark. Strong things have been said by people in Southwark about the conditions of that school and the refusal of the Minister to permit the ILEA to proceed with the reorganisation of it.
The year 1975–76 is mentioned in the White Paper. The Government came to power over two years ago, yet the children who go to these old schools in our constituencies will probably have to put up with the existing intolerable conditions for another seven years. That means that two generations of children will have gone through those schools before the necessary work has been done. I hope that the Government will not congratulate themselves on that singularly bad state of affairs.
We are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary of State, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whether she believes in secondary reorganisation on comprehensive lines and what effect she thinks that will have on building and staffing. How does she envisage the extension of comprehensive schools? There is no word in the White Paper about this matter, which is so important to those who live in London where the ILEA has proceeded far with reorganisation on comprehensive lines. The right hon. Lady recently told the House that she had no view on selection at 11-plus. It is extremely odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Science should have no view on the philosophy of the separation of children at the age of 11 and their subjection to this ridiculous examination. Has she any


views at all on the philosophy of education? If she has, she will surely have some view on that aspect. She will surely have a view on what will be the pattern of secondary education under her tutelage. Apparently she has none. In that case, I do not know what she is doing in Curzon Street.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The Department has moved; it is at the Elephant.

Mr. Hamling: I wish that the right hon. Lady had moved into the London College of Printing at the Elephant, where I used to teach and where she might see some real education at work.
What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of children she expects in future years to stay on at school beyond 16? What estimate has she of the future secondary school population and its effect on school building and staffing? The White Paper, which is alleged to be a blueprint for education for the next 10 years, offers no clue of what is in her mind.
Another matter which is of great concern to Londoners is the question of parental choice. In May each year parents express dissatisfaction about the school to which their children will be going when they are 11. Parents say "I will not send my child to that school". It might be the Charlton school or the Thomas Calton school in Southwark. In my constituency parents used not to want to send their children to a comprehensive school, be it Eltham Green or Kidbrooke, but that attitude has changed. Parents now come demanding to know why they cannot send their children to Kidbrooke, Eltham Green or Crown Woods, our comprehensive schools.
There are grave inequalities in staffing, and particularly in buildings and equipment, between some of our secondary schools. The buildings of some of our comprehensive schools are inadequate. No Opposition Member will disagree with that statement. It is the fault not of the ILEA but of the Government, who have deliberately prevented it from proceeding with some of its building programmes. The Evening Standard has been running articles on schools where there are special difficulties, where there is a deficiency

of children of the higher ability ranges. Who goes to those schools if the parents of able children, who are the articulate ones, refuse to send them there? It is a problem of parental choice, of balance, in the secondary schools. I hope that the Department has a view on that, even if it has no view on other matters of great importance in education.
Some of the comprehensive schools are labouring under great difficulties, yet the academic records of some of them are good. Some of the schools with great problems, schools which are limited in their ranges of ability, have academic records that compare very favourably with those of some of the smaller grammar schools in London, though I am sure that the Minister does not consider that the criterion of excellence is only the academic record. I am sure he will agree with me that there are other criteria of excellence than good academic records or the number of children going on to university.
Having taught for many years children with educational difficulties, perhaps with disturbed backgrounds, educational, emotional or domestic, I believe that one of the criteria of excellence is a school's ability to cope with such children, to find the best in all our children and not simply to look after the high-flyers. I hope that the Department has a view about the value—that respect of a school which has a wide range of ability.
It seems to me that it is possible to cope with children with special difficulties in a school where there is a wide range of ability, where perhaps some help can be given by one child to another. There are special difficulties in London, as in other big urban areas where there is a great deal of physical and social dereliction. Is there a responsibility on the authorities to do what they can to compensate the staff of schools for their special difficulties? What is the special responsibility of the Secretary of State in the matter? I believe that it is to come to the assistance of the staffs in those schools, to take special measures to assist the schools in the areas where the problems are.

Mr. Ronald Brown: There are schools in the inner London area where teachers are still


having to stand in the corridors and teach the children there, and the Secretary of State is doing nothing about it.

Mr. Hamling: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his wide experience in east London, just north of the Thames, can expand on those matters if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to take all his thunder.
When we started to teach, some of us did not teach in classes of 18 or 25. When I started I was teaching an average of 55 children in the class, and sometimes we approached 60. We have not seen that problem in London, at least for 60 or 70 years, but there are particular problems in particular schools of which some of my hon. Friends are aware. The Secretary of State is not aware of them. If she is, she does nothing about them and ignores them.
I want now to speak more particularly about some of the problems in London and to put one or two facts before the House. The White Paper talked complacently about the difficulties. One of the Secretary of State's priorities is the replacement of pre-1903 primary schools. But in London 138 out of 209 secondary schools are housed wholly or partly in buildings of pre-1903 vintage. That is not the 5 per cent. that the White Paper talks about. Well over half the secondary schools in use are 70 or more years old. I wonder what the Secretary of State has to say about that.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Nothing.

Mr. Hamling: The sum of £10 million a year in 1975–76 will not begin to deal with that sort of problem. We can make no progress in London without a radical change of policy on replacing our prewar and Victorian secondary school buildings. In London major capital works of that kind have been barred.
The minor works programme is in great difficulties. Next year's work has been largely brought into this year's to help the employment position. There is virtually nothing left in the kitty for next year. The allocation in London for 1972–73 was £1,170,000, a reduction of 25·6 per cent. on the previous year—and that against a background of tremendously increasing costs in the building industry. For 1973–74 the allocation is

£690,000, and for 1974–75 it is £500,000. That is absurd.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: That is only half.

Mr. Hamling: It is less than half in real terms because of the inflation over which the Government are presiding. House-building costs have doubled in five years, so what is the real value of that kind of programme?
It has become necessary to review the whole minor works commitment in London against that background. A number of projects already programmed have had to be abandoned. I wonder what the Secretary of State will say about that, bearing in mind what the White Paper says.
I should now like to talk about staffing. One of our great problems in London has been a loss of staff. I have taught in several educational establishments in London—secondary, further and higher—and there is no doubt that it is difficult to recruit staff to work in some of our more difficult schools. This is partly a reflection on the physical conditions in those schools. I say "partly" because questions such as salary, London allowance and so on are also involved
Great educational difficulties are encountered in some of these schools. For some time I taught in a school in Deptford, and I remember the headmaster saying "This is missionary work". Teachers are paid not as missionaries but as teachers. If the people concerned want missionaries, they should perhaps go to the religious authorities—I am not sure—but certainly we should not expect our teachers to be missionaries. Certainly we should not subject our teachers to the sort of conditions which mean that they are in great difficulties, with many of them being unable to cope with the classes they have to teach.
I now turn to the question of staffing in London. The ILEA has published certain figures about this, and I intend to refer to them, but they do not tell the whole story. They do not cover the people appointed on a temporary basis, and there is a high proportion of temporary teachers in London—people on supply, and even on permanent supply. For some time I was a supply teacher in London, and frequently it was the supply


teachers who covered the more difficult classes, which I regard as a bad thing.
I presume that the ILEA has made representations to the Government about the staffing situation particularly bearing on the question of the London allowance. The authority says that in its view the present basis of calculation of an appropriate rate for the London allowance is unsatisfactory and produces a figure which leads to severe difficulties in recruitment and in the retention of suitably experienced teaching staff.
All of us who represent London constituencies can report stories of the loss of staff periodically. A large comprehensive school near where I live lost more than one-third of its staff last summer. Nobody can run a school on a satisfactory basis if the children are never sure which teacher they will have as it were from one day to another. I once taught in a secondary modern school in London at which it was my job to go round every morning checking that every class had a teacher. Quite frequently classes did not and I had to leave my class to look after another class, and sometimes two other classes. That is the kind of thing that goes on in London. It is unsatisfactory. One reason for it is the inadequacy of the London allowance and the intractability of the Department when considering the situation.
An adequate teaching force, reasonably stable and composed of an appropriate number of both new teachers and more mature teachers, is essential if we are to have a reasonable educational system. We are thinking here of the children of London. That is what we are concerned with in this House, and I hope that is what we are concerned with in this debate. In inner London particularly the composition of the teaching force is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory from this point of view. There are more probationers in London than the national average. There are more young teachers and fewer mature teachers, and it seems unsatisfactory that young teachers from colleges of education and from the training departments of universities should come into the London service, stay for three or four years and then find that when they want to marry and settle down they cannot afford a home in London.
The National Board for Prices and Incomes in its report No. 44 dealt with the whole question of London weighting. It seemed to me that one of its general conclusions was inadequate. This was to reject the idea of
labour supply difficulties and, by extension, comparison with other employers as a basis for determining London weighting.
How can anyone reject labour supply difficulties and introduce a figure that is reasonable? How can anyone ignore the special difficulties of teaching in London, and especially in some parts of it? How can anyone ignore all the points that have been made?
But even the considerations that have been used for determining this figure—the cost of living statistics—are inaccurate. They take inadequate notice of the costs of housing in London. I heard of a semi-detached house in Finchley going for £27,000—an ordinary sort of house with three bedrooms. I do not know what is special about Finchley[Laughter.] Perhaps it has a Member of Parliament who has costly ideas, but in another direction, and not in education. In my constituency a reasonable house in an area that is unaffected by the planning blight resulting from the motorways will cost about £16,000 to £17,000. In some cases such houses cost no more than £800 to £900 to build. The situation is ridiculous. That sort of house can be bought in the provinces for less than half that figure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Not in the South-East.

Mr. Hamling: I am talking about the provinces, and I do not count the South-East in that category. I do not count Chelmsford as part of the broad expanse of Lincolnshire, Yorkshire or the Midlands. Chelmsford is affected by similar problems to those experienced in London from a housing point of view, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of Chelmsford, will tell his right hon. Friend that she does not know much about living costs in London. I hope that that intervention will have proved salutary from that point of view.
What are the actual costs? The housing costs index that is used does not appear to cover mortgages directly. Mortgage payments are held to be capital


payments and as such are not covered by the retail price index, of which the index of rent and other housing costs forms part. The rents element of housing costs is weighted to take account of the consumption of housing by owner-occupiers but this is a poor reflection of the real state of affairs and the actual costs in terms of mortgage payments to a householder, especially where a house is being acquired for the first time. As the purchase price of comparable housing is much higher in London than elsewhere, and the amount of capital and interest payments on a first mortage is correspondingly much greater, the actual costs of living in London for those who have recently acquired houses are seriously under-estimated in all the official statistics.
The absolute facts of a percentage price increase do not seem to be taken properly into account. For example, if one takes an increase of 50 per cent. on the price of housing and applies it to two properties formerly costing £4,000 and £6,000, a gap of £2,000, one gets an increased value of £6,000 and £9,000, a gap of £3,000. Young couples in London are constantly fighting to bridge this unbridgeable gap. We are not talking now of £9,000 houses. One cannot buy a house of any sort in south-east London which most teachers would be willing to accept for less than £10,000, which would be a very poor sort of house in my part of the world. Yet young teachers are expected to do this on their present salaries.
I hope that we will have more from the Secretary of State than the insulting and ridiculous offer which was suggested to teachers for the London allowance. I know many teachers elsewhere might argue that they have special problems, but we are elected to represent London parents, who expect us to do something for their children. That is what we are sent here for and we should be failing in our duty if we did not say, strongly and directly, that the Secretary of State's performance in this field has been insulting to the intelligence of the people of London.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) I, too, spent many

years in the London teaching service—13 to be exact—so I do not intend to mince my words tonight.
It is significant that during this debate only two supporters of the Government have so far made an appearance, and none from inner London or outer London is in the House—except one who is just arriving, perhaps to redeem the Government's side. The party opposite do not seem to have much confidence on this matter.
It should be axiomatic for everyone that educational needs are a first call on the community purse—that is true in almost any society—and that one fulfils the educational needs of schools and the young as a first call on community taxation and resources. I do not believe that that is the case at the moment.
The other night the Under-Secretary said that he wished to do more, but that getting money out of the Treasury was like getting blood from a stone. I do not believe that to be true. The Treasury does not take that attitude towards the Concorde project, as we will know on Monday, when we debate it. In fact, the Treasury did not even know how much it would cost.
As a teacher concerned with the welfare of young people and serving the parents of London as I try to do, I deplore the fact that Government's of whatever complexion fail to make education a first call on the community. It is no good the Under-Secretary saying that it is not so, when Concorde and similar projects come up time and again.
The needs of London are peculiar to London. There is a declining population, both absolutely and in terms of pupils, and in inner London this means, as my hon. Friend has said, that there is very little flexibility in new building and insufficient scope for the authority to manoeuvre. It is in inner London that the social problems are most difficult.
Where there are social problems, teachers are not concerned just with the scholastic; in my view, any teacher who is concerned only with that is not a teacher at all. Teachers have more and more to be concerned with providing a social environment in which young people who are already under stress can grow naturally and be educated in the fullest sense of the word. Thus, in inner London


the problems are very great. The resources that are required are space, equipment and people—people, of course, being by far the most important.
Outer London also has its problems. The London Borough of Ealing, part of which I represent, has a large overseas population which can grow unexpectedly, particularly in terms of children. I should have thought that with such a problem there would be ample opportunity for an educational authority to build ahead of a projected need, yet there is an intense argument going between my education authority and the Department on the extent to which space in schools can be built and allocated ahead of a projected need. This is deplorable, because everyone knows that that borough has particular problems, and any argument about them is deplorable.
My hon. Friend has dealt with the premises in inner London, which has 138 secondary school buildings which were built in the last century. Of course, it is a question not merely of the age of the building but of the facilities offered. My hon. Friend said that the minor works programme has been cut. What he did not mention was that the main school building programme is very low indeed. In 1972–73, the ILEA building programme, concerned mostly with primary schools—only one secondary school is included, at Thamesmead—involves the sum of £3·4 million. In 1974–75, it will be £3 million. If my arithmetic is correct, that is about one-twentieth each year of the cost of the West Cross motorway, which is about £60 million. In other words, in terms of expenditure 200 yards of urban motorway is roughly equivalent to the new school building programme in inner London for one year. That highlights my remarks about our priorities in social need.
A further difficulty arises about premises in Ealing. The borough wished to change to a comprehensive system of education—a very difficult problem, because many schools in that area are very small. Accordingly, it produced a scheme for making the change over a 10-year period, in a phased way. I understand that the Department said, "We cannot do that. A 10-year programme, committing school building 10 years ahead, will not be accepted by the Treasury". Because

of that, as I understand it—I am subject to correction—the borough had to withdraw the plan, which had the support of not only the teachers but the parents, and substitute another highly contentious, scheme.
No community can afford to do things like that. If an educational plan is agreed and the only sticking point is the projection of school building 10 years ahead, some administrative fiat comes in. Some adviser at the Treasury says, "We cannot make a commitment 10 years ahead, not even for education". If we have reached that stage in central Government it is time that the public knew that we are not being served very well. I challenge the Minister to deny that we can and should make education a first charge on the public purse.
My hon. Friend mentioned the standard of building, and I said that it was a question not just of age but of space. In my constituency the Acton Wells primary school, built in 1904, is surrounded on four sides by industry, the reason being that it was built before the projected houses were built, and in fact the housing estate was never developed. That school has 450 children, fifteen normal-sized classes and three smaller classes. Each class has a base room, and there are five additional rooms for art, music, and visual aids, a library and remedial reading. Any teacher reading what I have to say will know that that is very reasonable provision. That is about what is required. Anything less than that would inevitably mean that the quality of education for the pupils would be reduced because of the inherent inflexibility or increasing inflexibility of the situation.
That school, by Department regulations, can accommodate 640 pupils; indeed, in plans which the Minister has passed it will in due course house 640 pupils. In correspondence with the Under-Secretary's noble Friend in another place, the hon. Gentleman has said that it is all right because it is within the regulations; but I believe that those regulations are wrong. In the last two years I have had correspondence with the Department on this matter, and at no time has the Department told me the educational basis of the school building regulations. I once attended a conference at which I asked a question about this matter. It was quite clear that the


school building regulations are related to what the Department thinks it can get from the Treasury and not to what teachers require in schools.
The problem is great in primary schools and even greater in secondary schools, because unless we provide a reasonable atmosphere, with reasonable flexibility in the timetable and a room for each teacher, we are immediately in trouble. I have had 13 years of that, and I am fed up with it. This is because the Whitehall bureaucracy does not understand teachers' needs. If a professional person such as a doctor says that in an operation room he needs this, that or the other sort of equipment, it is provided straight away; but that does not happen for teachers. These regulations are a case in point.
I come now to the most important part of educational provision, in terms of meeting children's needs, namely, teachers. We know that buildings are to base from which one starts and that after that the teacher meets the needs of individual children. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West was quite right in saying that the educational quality of a school is related not to its scholastic attainment but to the degree to which teachers are able successfully to meet the needs of each child and enable that child to develop and grow in the fullest sense.

Mr. Hamling: I hope that my hon. Friend will quote me correctly. I did not say that schools should not be concerned with scholastic standards; I said that they are only one criterion. I am a great believer in scholastic attainments, but there are other things, too.

Mr. Spearing: I agree. I, too, am concerned with scholastic standards. The point is, however, that the overall assessment of the school cannot be based on scholastic standards alone. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
The difficulty is that in meeting these needs teachers are constantly brought up against administrative strait-jackets. I have mentioned the question of space. Any teacher is up against the difficulties inherent in the department of which he is a part in a secondary school. The head of a department—I speak from experience—is up against restrictions on

space and the difficulties of the school. The head of the school is up against administrative difficulties with the authority. The authority is up against administrative difficulties with the Department of Education and Science.
In many cases I do not blame educational administrators. Sometimes they know no better. The Inner London Education Authority administrators are hard at work trying at least to obtain the required resources, and teachers sometimes blame them for difficulties which are not, perhaps, the fault of the administrators, who spend much time merely maintaining the existing situation. The problem is that when up against these difficulties, let alone the difficulties of the children, one is trying to move against a tide which should not exist. In other words, stresses are produced in teachers, and among them, which need never occur. The teachers know that they need never occur. It is one thing to be up against difficulties which are inevitable; it is another to be up against them when one knows that they can be removed but are not removed because people do not understand them.
In meeting stresses in inner London today the teachers are not merely providing professional expertise. Anyone who teaches will know that one is giving of oneself, being drained emotionally and spiritually in a way which cannot be compared with what is involved in many other jobs. Certainly the work in the House is a haven of peace compared to the work in many London schools. On top of stress, London teachers have their own social, family stresses, connected with family housing and travel. Therefore, they do not have the steam left to give to the children what is required. It is no wonder that we read in the Press of difficulties of teachers who are doing their best but facing this stress on every front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said that the number of young teachers in London was relatively high. In the Inner London Education Authority, 50 per cent. of the lady teachers are under the age of 30. I dare say that a high proportion of that number are under 25. The national proportion is 38 per cent. In primary schools in inner London 20 per cent. of the teachers


are men. The national figure is 25 per cent.
As anyone knows, it is very important to have a number of experienced male teachers in every primary school. If we do not have them, things are very difficult. Indeed, the National Union of Teachers claims that in many London primary schools any child passing through them is taught almost continuously by teachers in their first year of teaching. I can well believe that. I know of one primary school in which one class has had up to five different teachers since September. That is the state of some schools today.
The schools with the worst problems are very often those where there is the greatest turnover of staff and the lowest proportion of experienced teachers. The experienced teacher in a school with a high proportion of less experienced teachers is subject to even greater strains and stresses. I do not claim that the problem is confined to London, but the stresses are far greater in London and the problems which affect the nation as a whole will probably show first within the London area.
That brings me to my final point, the London allowance. The problems which London teachers face and try to meet mean that they are more aware of actions taken by the Government regarding education in London, particularly those affecting their pay and remuneration. My hon. Friend mentioned Report No. 44 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the fact that the criteria on which the Secretary of State has made the offer does not take into account housing costs.
The Nationwide Building Society has said that from the fourth quarter of 1970 to the second quarter of 1972 the price of old houses rose by 57 per cent. and that of modern houses rose by 67 per cent. As I understand it, the formula upon which the last offer to teachers was based does not take into account those increases. The cost of meeting mortgages is far more than those percentages indicate because of the extra interest involved. This reflects something of the disease in our society, and not just the educational problem.
If one is forced to travel a long distance into London, or to areas outside

London, what chance is there of taking part in out-of-school activities? What chance is there for a teacher who is keen on sport to come in on a Saturday morning? All the weighting is the other way. What chance is there to know something of the children's background or even the slightest details of the areas from which they are drawn? There is less and less chance, so the ability of the teachers to meet the needs of the children grows less and less the longer and further they have to travel.
All of us know the difficulties of travel in London today, of late arrivals and so on. These have much greater repercussions when they occur in human situations than when people are concerned with machines, or with an office where the paper work is perhaps a sort of production line. London teachers have been more and more aware of the difficulties. Last April they had an adjudication award for the whole country in terms of pay.
The unions had asked that the London allowance of £112 should be reviewed as from last April but the adjudicator, for reasons best known to himself, put it off until November. The conversations took place and on 20th October the local authorities were about to make an offer. I emphasise a point which has not so far been understood. The offer was from the whole of the employers' panel of the Burnham Committee. It was not just an offer from the inner and outer London Education authorities. In other words, the latter had to persuade all their colleagues from outside London that this was an offer that should be made. This is an important point.
If London is to get the teachers it needs, in terms of either age structure or absolute numbers, it is in direct competition with other authorities outside London. Thus, in order to make any offer at all the London education authorities had to persuade the majority of their, as it were, competitors that this was the right offer to make. Under the formula which has been agreed in relation to the report of the Prices and Incomes Board. I understand that supply is not taken into account. In other words, the market for teachers, which on a national basis is highly fluid, is not taken into account. All that is taken into account is the price indices which do not include


housing. That is a ridiculous situation. If I am wrong about this, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will correct me.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would probably be better for me not to intervene now but to answer the points at the end of the debate.

Mr. Spearing: I hope the hon. Gentleman at least agrees that what I have just said is correct. If it is, the whole situation is a nonsense. If it is true, all these fundamental points of getting teachers into London and the other administrative matters I have mentioned, bad as they are, pale into insignificance.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the long distances travelled by teachers in London and the cost of transport?

Mr. Spearing: Many teachers are forced, on the mortgage-season ticket balance, to go out a very long way, perhaps even as far as Chelmsford—who knows? That is the situation of an increasing number of teachers. It is not because they want to live at such long distances but because the mortgage-season ticket balance makes it inevitable.
Because the offer of 20th October was expected, if not to cover all these costs, at least to be realistic, the authorities were looking forward to making it. But then the Secretary of State said "No". That was why we were so angry. That was why about 10,000 London teachers went on half-day strike. The right hon. Lady said that the Government were holding talks with the TUC and would have to stop the offer. Yet on 26th September the Government had suggested pay increases of £2 a week to the TUC in their talks. In other words, on that basis the teachers could have gone up to £104 a year. The situation is inexplicable. If we are to believe the Press reports of an extra £82, that is less than the £104. Apart from that, 1st November being the date from which it was implemented as a result of the adjudication in the previous April, part of the 1972 award is not going forward in 1973.
It is no wonder that the teachers, frustrated in so many respects and under very great stress, said "It is the end ". I fear that the morale of the London teachers became so bad about those whom

they regard as administrators and boffins in Whitehall—I am sure that their language is less polite than that—that they went on strike. That is the situation in education and it should never have happened.
Someone has said that we congratulate ourselves on how well we negotiate crisis after crisis, but of course these crises should never occur. If we do not put the needs of education and young people as a first charge upon our resources, financial, emotional, and spiritual, we shall be in a bad way. The Government pay lip service to education but do not back it up in practice. I hope I have been able to show why they should support it in practice.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I want to follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) but I must apologise to him because I had to leave the Chamber while he was talking.
Sooner or later some Government will find themselves rich enough or humane enough—or perhaps intelligent enough—to change the pecking order in which teachers find themselves in the salary structure. Most of us agree that, for historical or other reasons, teachers almost certainly do not get the sort of salary that is commensurate with their responsibilities. I have always been in favour of a structured salary scale for them, and I believe that there should be a considerable differential between the scale at which the teacher starts and that which he can achieve when he reaches more responsibility. I should like to see the whole salary scale moved up several notches.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the vexed question of the London weighting. I do not suppose that there are any London Members who have not received numerous deputations of teachers. I certainly have. In many cases there seemed to me to be a genuine lack of understanding—an incomprehension—of just what the London weighting is and what its purpose is. Like other hon. Members, in the last few weeks I have spoken to many teachers on this matter. As far as I could ascertain, their opinion was that the London weighting was an allowance for the cost of living in London. In other words, because London was so expensive


the London weighting should be so much, and because the cost of living had gone up by so much in London, therefore the London weighting should go up by an equivalent sum. They were wrong. That is not the purpose of the London weighting.
The purpose is to balance the difference between the cost of living in London and the cost of living outside London. One can envisage the unhappy circumstance, for a London teacher, of the cost of living outside London rising at a faster rate since the last award for the cost of living in London, and the London weighting being therefore reduced. That is theoretically possible, though unlikely, because costs in a capital city usually rise faster than outside it.
I told as many of my constituent teachers as I could—I do not know whether they believed me—that the London weighting is to make up for the difference in the increase or decrease in the cost of living between the capital and outside. If, in these circumstances, the £15 was based on the difference in the cost of living increases inside London and outside it, I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me on the point. I ask him whether this is a result of a statistical process calculated on the formula recommended by the Prices and Incomes Board in 1967.
When I explained this point to teachers many of them combated it by saying, "You may be right, but nevertheless the cost of living has risen by far more than £15-worth in London than outside it." Common sense tells me that they are right. In the circumstances, we must question the formula applied, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) did. I would welcome an assurance that the formula will be looked at to see whether it is still genuine in terms of what has been happening to prices in London. I find it difficult to believe that the difference between the increases in London and outside is only £15 worth over two or three years.
The hon. Member for Acton also spoke about the supply of teachers. All hon. Members must be gratified to know that the ratio of teachers to children in London is probably better than any-

where else in the country. I am told that the ratio is very good. What is bad is the turnover. I do not know whether an answer can be given without exhaustive research, but does the high turnover arise because pay is bad for living in London—or is the turnover as bad as, or comparable with, other large urban areas?
I fear that we must accept that teaching in a school in certain parts of our great cities—not only in this but other countries—is not as pleasant as teaching in more pastoral surroundings. Do Manchester, Leeds or Glasgow, for example, suffer the same problem of high turnover? If they do, might it be the consequence not so much of pay but of conditions? I go along with some of the points made about conditions.
I come now to the vexed question of a differential in the weighting between inner and outer London. Several branches of Government service have the same sort of formula applied to London weighting as do teachers and there is a differential between outer London and inner London. There is considerable variation—it may be almost as much as 2 to 1—between the inner London and outer London weighting. Teachers to whom I have spoken about this say that costs in outer London are just as high in inner London. It is true that a house in Richmond will probably cost more than a house in Clapham. Nevertheless, there must surely be a statistical definition. If there is, and it were shown to teachers, it might seem reasonable to them, and fairer to certain of their number, that there should be a variation between inner and outer London.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The teachers do not want that differential.

Mr. Shelton: I appreciate that. I understand from them that they do not want it. At least one to whom I have talked said that he did not want it because he thought that there was no difference in costs. If it were shown to teachers that there was a difference in costs they might change their minds. If there is any difference in costs, and if—to introduce another element—it is more unpleasant to teach in central London than in outer London it would seem fairer to have such a differential. But that is something that must be left to the teachers.
We are all concerned about these problems. I have seen Press reports that there may be further industrial action—that unpleasant phrase—next year. That is of even greater concern to all of us, and to parents and children. I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. Friend has to say in reply.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: There is great concern about the problem of education in London, as is evidenced by the number of hon. Members who have asked for it to be debated on this Bill. The attitude of the Secretary of State to the question of education in London—the Under-Secretary of State has been in the game for too short a time to enable us to make judgments about him—is mean, short-sighted and ignorant. Those are strong words but I think they are justified. I shall let pass some of the errors which the right hon. Lady has made, like cutting out free school milk and closing museums and galleries to children in London, both of which were mean acts. Let me dwell on present matters.
There are three issues: first, the Secretary of State's policy on new school buildings; secondly, her policy on school improvements—the minor works programme; and thirdly, her policy towards the teachers. Meanness and parsimony are a consistent theme in all three subjects.
I deal first with the question of major building. For secondary schools the Secretary of State bases her policy on need. For that reason, only one new secondary school is projected in inner London, Thamesmead, where virtually a new town is growing up. That is the lot for the secondary education building programme in London. Even if the Inner London Education Authority wants to use its own resources and does not want a penny of the Treasury's money it cannot use them. It wanted to rebuild Thomas Calton school as an experimental school from its own resources, but the parsimony was so great that it was not allowed to spend its own money.
In view of her policy, I wonder whether the Secretary of State knows about the problems in any detail. The mere fact that she has published a White Paper

which does not mention comprehensive education is a fair indication of her level of thinking. Has she never heard of the expression "sink school" in London? Does she not realise the effect of an outdated secondary school which is unpopular with parents and with teachers and which is perilously close to becoming a second-class school for second-class citizens? Is she not aware of the vicious circle created by an old school in an area with problems which is unpopular with parents because the parents do not send top-class ability children there and the school's reputation becomes worse? Teaching in the school is even less rewarding, therefore less talented teachers go to it.
Somebody must break that vicious circle. That is why from time to time we need to rebuild schools which have problems. Not every old school is a bad school, provided it is given the right facilities, the right intake and the right staff. But in London we have old schools which are bad schools. They may be filled by children from areas which already have more than their fair share of deprivation in the form of poor housing, poverty and unemployment among young people and their parents. Statistics for the whole of London conceal these problems.
I could reel off the names of the schools but I prefer not to do so—except in the case of the Thomas Calton School, which is a well-know example—because it can sometimes add to their problems. My constituency is very lucky. Practically every secondary school in my constituency is new. The one exception is the Strand grammar school, and it would be interesting to have an indication of the Secretary of State's thinking on it. That is the school which the Inner London Education Authority wanted to amalgamate with the Dick Sheppard Girls' School. The Secretary of State decided, without being asked, that the school should be closed, so ILEA set about closing it. There were High Court proceedings but apparently the right notices had not been given. Therefore, a fresh application was made to the Secretary of State to make a decision consistent with her first decision. Will the second decision, for which she has been asked, be consistent with the first decision, for which she was not asked? Will my constituency at long last be able to move to a fully comprehensive system?
There are 138 Victorian and pre-First World War schools in London. They must be rebuilt. It is disgraceful that we should have to continue with them without any addition. There are over 300 primary schools. At the present rate of progress they will not be replaced until 1990, assuming that there are no financial crises, no freezes and no cutbacks in public expenditure, which have become a common feature of Governments of both parties. The major school building programme in London is going down as costs are going up. If we cannot have new schools, we can improve the old ones. The former Minister for Housing and Construction said, "We should be rid of the 2 million slums in 10 years. We will not demolish them; we will improve them." If we cannot get rid of slum schools, let us improve them.
However, the story of minor improvements in London is incredible. If the figures were given in a news sheet issued by a body other than the Inner London Education Authority nobody would believe them. For 1971–72 the allocation is about £1½ million. In 1972–73 it will go down to £1,170,000, a reduction of 25 per cent., assuming constant costs; the real reduction will be even greater. In 1973–74 it will go down to £690,000, a reduction on the previous year's figure of 56 per cent. For 1974–75 it will go down to £500,000 for 1,250 schools in the Inner London Education Authority. Discounting increases in the cost of building, that is a reduction of 68 per cent. We have been told by ILEA that many essential projects have had to be abandoned.
The present allocation for 1,250 schools in inner London is roughly £1,200 per school. The allocation for 1974–75 will be £400 per school, taking no account of inflation. This is a savage attack. It is not a cut; it is close on liquidation. It even applies to areas with an identifiable need. Educational priority area schools which have an identifiable need for extra resources will suffer a cut. That is consistent with the policy of the Conservatives in 1932 when they dispensed with school prizes in London as an economy measure.
Let me give some examples from my constituency. I have a primary school in my constituency—Hill Mead, in Sussex Road, Brixton—which is in an

educational priority area, so it has been accorded the right status for resources. It was not purpose built. It was converted from the Brixton School of Building. The premises were made into a primary school addition because of the increase in population in Lambeth. It is an old school. The Inner London Education Authority proposed—and this was in its programme, ready for approval—to spend £45,000 on the school for adaptations and improvements, to provide a nurture room, resource areas, an extention of the library, a parents' utility room, stock rooms, staff dining accommodation, internal toilets and a remodelling of staircases and entrances. That kind of thing is needed to adapt the school for the purpose for which it has been brought back into use, but the plans have been cut completely as a result of the imposition of limits on the minor works programme.
In another school—and here I must declare an interest because two of my children go to it; the other child goes to a comprehensive school elsewhere—we wanted sanitary improvements to be made and indoor toilets to be provided. At present there is one indoor toilet for 400 children. The children must walk 111 metres in order to use an unheated, outdated outside toilet. This situation must be rectified.
Let me give the scale of the problem in the divisional area of Lambeth. As a result of the Government's proposals, the amount of money available for minor improvements in Lambeth is the "massive" sum of £5,300 to be spread among 100 schools in a year. That is an average of £53 per school. It would not even keep the Under-Secretary of State's predecessor in ice cream for a fortnight. Hon. Members will recall that he confessed to eating over 100 ice creams in a day. It is not enough money to pay for a weekend trip to Rome for the present Under-Secretary of State. Yet it is supposed to be enough to provide for the improvement of each school in Lambeth.
Lambeth has its problems. It is an area of high immigration and a great lack of housing. It has high unemployment, especially among the unskilled trades. I am chairman of the Tulse Hill comprehensive school. It is a modern school, but it needs more robust staircases, through corridors and more staff


roosms. None of those things can be provided for £53. That would not even buy a couple of posts for a football match.
In London, which has social turmoil and appalling housing conditions, and where there is already disenchantment among young people and a good deal of homelessness, the Government are applying not a freeze but an ice age, which every geologist knows brings about erosion. We face an erosion of standards as a result of the curtailment of the minor works programme. Why are massive improvement grants given to property speculators in the West End when each school in Lambeth is to receive an improvement grant of £53 for 1974?
I come to the question of the teachers. I wish to deal with this matter from the point of view of the children's interests, because the teachers' case has been argued. Children want two things from their teachers—stability and quality. The brilliant teacher who goes from school to school, doing a school year or term, is no use to the children. I would rather see a dull teacher in a school for a long time than a brilliant teacher who goes there for a term. We talk about gipsy children who go to one school for three months and then move on to another school for three months. In London it is not the children but the teachers who are nomads.
Because of the high turnover, teachers cannot get to know the children. They cannot get to know the parents, which is equally important, because we must build a link between school and home. They cannot get to know the community. In London they cannot afford to live in the community. House prices in my constituency have doubled in the last year. Reasonable houses which formerly were priced at about £9,000 or £10,000 have gone up in price to about £20,000. The increase in mortgage repayments would absorb the whole of a teacher's salary.
Therefore, an increase must be made in the London allowance to try to keep teachers linked with the community and with the schools. The Department of Education should use its imagination and perhaps encourage housing associations for teachers so that the accommodation might be kept out of the inflationary spiral. But in view of the distance which teachers must travel, the enormous turn

over among teachers and the larger number of first-year teachers in London schools, the message is clear: there must be better provision made in the London allowance for the sake not simply of the teachers but of the children.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought the attitude of the Secretary of State was mean, shortsighted and ignorant. The figures which my hon. Friends and I have given bear that out. In many part of London which face social turmoil, children are very much at the cross-roads. Given the right kind of priorities and given stability they can achieve great things. But given a lack of stability and an absence of the right kind of priorities they can become a lost generation infected by disenchantment. The cost of that will be much greater than any of the false economies which the Government now seek to make.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I echo the words that were spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State on taking up his position and also expressing the hope that it will be something of a hot seat. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has already discovered that. I know that he used to show a considerable interest in education before he took up his present post, and I hope he will continue to show that interest. I hope he will welcome the pressure that will be put on him from all parts of the country and, I suspect, principally from London.
Before I pass on, I wish to refer to the remarks which came at the end of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I will quote the speech by Sir Alec Clegg which appeared in The Times Educational Supplement. His speech was referred to in an article which says:
'Guerrilla tactics from rejected groups will shortly disrupt Britain's developing meritocracy unless schools compensate for the social inequalities of our children.' This warning is given today by Sir Alec Clegg, director of education for the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Sir Alec Clegg is one of the greatest educationists we have produced and he is one of the most forward-looking. In his speech in The Times Educational Supplement he sums up many of the complaints that the Opposition have been making


about the Government's attitude towards education in London.
The remark has already been made that apparently the Secretary of State has no view at all about the future development and shape of secondary education. That is profoundly disturbing for all kinds of reasons. Reference has already been made to the development of sink schools. No reference has yet been made to the great difficulties that the Inner London Education Authority experienced this year with secondary transfer. It tried to institute a system which as far as possible would not result in some schools taking an undue share of children with cultural, linguistic or behavioural difficulties. We all know the consequences which arose from that. They arose because there are some schools which, for good or bad reasons, are regarded by parents as being inadequate for their children.
There is a school in my constituency, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West—Charlton secondary boys'—that suffered a most unjust fate because of the Secretary of State's refusal, just over a year ago, that it should be rebuilt. It is a fine school which I know well. I have been there on several occasions. I was present at its speech day this year. I can say with full authority that it is highly successful in its own way. It has a new and capable headmaster and a highly competent and devoted staff. What is more, it is fortunate in that it has a relatively stable staff.
As a result, the school can be thoroughly proud of its achievements, both academic and in other respects. Yet it is housed in two disgusting Victorian buildings on the Woolwich Road which are separated by about half a mile. Consequently it is inevitably regarded by many people in the borough as an undesirable school. Earlier this year, when the secondary transfer season arrived, the school suffered a great deal of unjust publicity, which has made it very sensitive to comments that are made about it.
In spite of that bad publicity, I can speak from first-hand knowledge of the school and of the extremely good work which is being done there. If the school is continually refused the opportunity of

rebuilding, which was confidently expected just over a year ago, we can only expect a fall in the morale of the staff of the school, with the inevitable consequences to which my hon. Friends have referred.
No doubt the Under-Secretary of State, as part of his early duties, has been studying the Halsey Report on educational priority areas. The hon. Gentleman will have noted, if he has done so, that Professor Halsey lays special emphasis on the importance of the morale of the teaching profession in educational priority areas. That morale depends upon the kind of attitude which is shown in the salary awards that are made. It is also dependent on the surroundings in which teachers work and their facilities.
On both grounds the Government have fallen down. It is not just the fact that teachers find themselves very short of money in London. The fact is that they refer to the behaviour of the Secretary of State over the London allowance as insulting. It was insulting in the sense that to them it appeared to be a reflection of their value in the work they were doing. Some of them, as has been mentioned already, are working under extraordinarily difficult conditions and under great strain. Many of them travel considerable distances to reach their places of work; and for the Secretary of State to make that decision, on top of everything else, has been disastrous. It is disastrous on account of the Government's failure to provide buildings that are needed for secondary education. In addition, the Government's decision about the London allowance is to be strongly criticised, as is the way in which they behaved towards the teaching profession.
I mentioned earlier the sort of difficulties which some of our teachers in London are undergoing, particularly in the inner London area. All of us have looked with interest at the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion." We welcome the apparent conversion of the Secretary of State in recognising the importance of nursery education and the provision of nursery education. We are delighted that a step appears to have been taken in that direction.
Although I am not competent at the moment to assess the value of the White


Paper, one of the points which need to be forcefully made, because it is conceivable that the Under-Secretary of State is not aware of its importance, is the enormous importance of making proper provision for the training of teachers for work in the nursery schools that we very much hope we will have in future. That is vitally important. There is a tendency, particularly among people who have not worked in education, to assume that nursery school teaching is easy. In fact, it is the most difficult and skilled form of teaching that can be undertaken.
In addition I very much hope that when the nursery provision is made we will ensure that it is available to every child in the inner London area before we extend further afield. It is in these areas that it is most seriously required. I also hope that when we are talking about the training of nursery school teachers we recognise that the first teachers who go into the schools in these areas will need to be highly skilled, not only in dealing with very young children but also in teaching children whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds will be different from those of white children because of the large numbers of children of immigrant parents who are likely to be attending those schools.
The Under-Secretary is no doubt already aware of the deep concern which exists in the inner London area over the very high proportion of children of West Indians who, for some reason which we find difficult to assess, find their way into schools for the educationally subnormal. This is a highly disturbing situation which I believe was first brought to our attention well over a year ago by Bernard Coard who wrote a pamphlet on this very subject. More concern was expressed by Mr. Townsend who was doing research on behalf of the National Foundation for Educational Research. Yet I was informed, as a result of evidence recently given by the Department of Education and Science to the Select Committee on Race Relations, that no systematic appraisal of the reasons for this has yet been attempted. I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that a systematic appraisal of this very serious and worrying problem will be undertaken very shortly to assist teachers in general to find solutions to this problem.
I would mention incidentally an article which appeared this month in "Race Today", entitled "ESN Children: What the Teachers Say", by Valerie Fethney. I should like to read one sentence from that article:
In one London school for the educationally sub-normal two-thirds of the pupils should have been in ordinary schools, according to people who should know—the teachers themselves.
I believe there is an increasing amount of evidence of this fact, borne out by research, which is referred to in this same article, which shows that the longer a child of West Indian parents has been in this country and the longer he has experience of our educational system, the more easily he begins to cope with the learning situation. Certainly the article indicates that for many young West Indian children there is a very considerable period of adaptation to our educational system and adaptation to the new environment in which they find themselves. This is probably an unrecognised factor with which they have had to cope, resulting in the fact that many of them have found themselves in schools for the educationally subnormal.
I warn the Under-Secretary of the consequences of the present neglect to the educational system of London. I have referred to Sir Alec Clegg's remarks. I know that many of the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends are worried about "mugging" and about dangerous and antisocial behaviour amongst young people. I believe that the consequences are likely to arise increasingly as a result of failure to make proper provision and also as a result of a divisiveness in education. If we label children failures, if we separate them from their fellows in allowing a percentage of children from an area to go to a middle-class school and get a middle-class type of education, we reject them. We treat them as if they are rejected by the community at large, and we can only expect the kind of behaviour of which we have seen too much evidence in our cities.
I hope the Under-Secretary will give consideration to the necessity for developing the idea of comprehensive education, and not merely comprehensive education but the kind of experiment which was implicit in the Thomas Calton school—a school which is directly relevant to the


needs and problems of the community which surrounds it and which it serves.
I want to put this to the Under-Secretary as something which may be relevant to the future to the London system of education. Repeatedly my hon. Friends have referred to the problems that London teachers have of finding reasonable accommodation. I put this suggestion to the Under-Secretary because it must be considered. I refer to the possibility of providing housing for teachers in inner London areas in order to solve the appalling problem of the rapid change in staff. For all too short a time I taught in an inner London comprehensive school. I remember one of the more experienced teachers saying to me "You do not get through to these boys until you have been here two years". That is the problem. It is much more of a problem in the inner London areas where children need the trust and understanding of teachers, and the need to develop a loyalty to particular teachers. It is much more important in those areas than it may be in other parts of the country that we provide for a suitable teaching force. That is why this rapid turnover of teachers in London is such a disaster for our young people.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I should like to follow briefly my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) in his thoughts on the problem of turnover of staff. I do not think that it is worth arguing the case which has been advanced in the past that if the situation is the same all over the country there is apparently no problem. London has its specific problems, and I do not believe the Secretary of State is aware of these problems. Her attitude seems to suggest that she has not understood them clearly. I want to address myself to some of the relevant issues.
I regard my area as being educationally deprived. The problem of attracting teachers has a greater impact in my area. Once they have passed through school one has educationally deprived children aged 15 and 16 who are unable to take their place in society. I find that I then have to intervene on their behalf because they have run foul of the law. We then

have to decide whether they ought to be sent to a borstal institution or to some other educational establishment in order to make them into better citizens, after having deliberately ensured that during their formal years of education they have been deprived of the basis of good citizenship. Therefore, the 30 per cent. change-over is a factor of great importance to us.
A stable teaching force is important. In my area almost every teacher is a London first appointment, because of the inability to attract mature teachers. They are all drafted into my area. They arrive towards the end of the educational year and the beginning of the new year, in September.
An important part of this exercise is the attraction of the middle range of teachers, deputy headmasters and Class IV teachers. One London borough advertised for a head teacher four times before receiving a sufficient number of applicants for consideration for the appointment. In addition, it had to advertise three times for a Scale 9/10 position. There were then 12 applicants for a deputy headship. There must be something wrong. It is no good the Secretary of State for Education and Science, or the Under Secretary, giving us platitudes this evening; these figures and this information have been known for a long time.
I was sad that today's White Paper showed no awareness of, and has not addressed itself to, the problem.
In my area we have had the absurd situation where, due to the departmental edict that there must be no fewer than 30 children in a class, proposals are being made to close schools and to shunt children to other schools, so as to be sure of having 30 children in every class, because the Department of Education and Science will not pay the Exchequer grant if there are less than 30 children in a class.
One has the situation where insufficient teachers are being attracted. Those teachers who are attracted are working on first appointments; they have no experience. One cannot attract the mature, experienced, middle-range, deputy-head or head teachers, and now the number of schools is to be reduced. We shall have a situation where the inexperienced teachers will work in a crowded classroom


where they are teaching in the corridors and endeavouring to give the children living in my constituency the educational opportunities they should have. Little wonder that I cannot be as proud of the educational attainment sitting on the Government Front Bench of children from my area as hon. Members who have double first degrees at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. The children living in my area do not get the chance. There are some very bright children there, but the cards are stacked against them. I hope the Under-Secretary understands that these children have the same rights as any other child. Therefore, we must ensure that they are able to avail themselves of those rights.
In my constituency there is the problem of accommodation. Male and female teachers working in the ILEA service teach together, find themselves attracted, and marry. They leave the ILEA service and go to some other teaching service in another part of the country, where they can find a house. There is no point in their living in London. They would have to stay with each other's parents. They could not live an ordinary married life.
The cost of housing in London is a scandal. In 1970, in the fourth quarter, in London a new house cost £6,500, a modern one cost £6,575, and an older one cost roughly £5,500. During the fourth quarter of 1972 a new house cost about £11,500, a modern house £11,060, and an old house about £9,000.
Why the Secretary of State, with the vast army she has behind her, cannot be made aware of it, is beyond my comprehension. How does she believe that teachers can live in London? If she does not believe they can live in London, where does she suggest they live? When she suggests where they live she might suggest how they can come to London. I have to travel 4½ miles to the House. It takes me almost an hour to get here. How does the Under-Secretary of State expect teachers to get to their schools in my constituency?
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) laughs at these matters. But they are serious matters. I suspect that they are as serious in Aylesbury—if the hon. Member were interested—as they are in London. I hope that the hon. Member

will understand that we are attempting to address ourselves to a real problem. Twelve thousand teachers came to the House to make Members of Parliament aware of their problems. The Secretary of State must understand that an answer should be given. Where does she expect the teachers to live? Young single teachers must pay £8 a week rent for a flat. If they double or treble up they must still pay £6 per week each for very unattractive flats. How does the Secretary of State suggest that these teachers are going to be able to live? Without that answer the Department is not addressing itself to the real problem.
Coming to the allowance, concerning which the 12,000 teachers came to this House, I saw the teachers from my own area. They are excellent people, trying to do a tremendous job. They are interested not only in money but in the health, welfare and development of the children in the area. They devote a vast amount of time, beyond the call of duty, to carrying out pastoral duties to help children to develop in the widest sense. I hope that no one in the House believes that because those teachers came here in force to ask for a London allowance, that is all they do. They fight hard for a wide range of activities for children. Therefore, the fact that they came here to draw our attention to the inequalities of this allowance shows that they were attempting to address themselves to a problem—trying to argue the case why their colleagues are leaving the teaching service in such numbers.
I support those who say that the Secretary of State's decision to offer £12 a year was so ludicrous as to be almost inconceivable. I am told—how true it is I do not know, but it is a talking point in my constituency—that the Secretary of State was taken out of a Cabinet meeting and then the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Lady had a conference outside the room and came to their big decision—the Father Christmas of all Father Christmases—that the country could afford to pay London teachers a further £3 on top of the £12, making £15 in all. That was the crunch decision.
If that is the way the country is now being run, heaven help us. No wonder it is in such a state, when the Prime


Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Science have to come out of the Cabinet room and jointly decide to make an increase from £12 to £15. I content myself with that observation at the moment, because I hope to see the right hon. Lady soon to discuss these matters in detail on behalf of my constituents. It is a silly situation, which shows up the Government for what they really are.
I turn now to the White Paper. We had it only today, but a quick reading of it reveals its approach to the problems which we have tried to identify. Our principal problem in inner London is teacher supply, yet this is what is glibly said in paragraph 50:
… the Government think it right to be guided by the judgment of experienced teachers and educationists that a further reduction in the average size of classes would be justified on both educational and social grounds.
That is marvellous, but it is not exactly new. What is more. I want to know how I am to take it. How will it affect the idea of closing the Edith Cavell school in my constituency because the Secretary of State insists that there be 30 children in a class, and, if the school is not closed, there will be 26 or 27 children per class? Do I take it that that can now be stopped, and the requirement regarding 30 children in a class no longer applies on the basis of paragraph 50 of the White Paper? Not only on educational grounds but on social grounds, especially in my constituency, smaller classes are essential. That is now conceded by the Minister.
Paragraph 51 refers to numbers of teachers. We cannot get enough teachers. When I visited one of my schools two weeks ago the headmistress tried hard to find a chance to speak to me, but, because she was already five teachers short, she was rushing round trying to find someone to look in and take care of a class.
The Secretary of State tells us that the aim is to increase the number in the teaching service by 155,000 by 1981. If teachers are offered the sort of standards and salaries that they are being offered in my constituency today, we shall not attract them. The 12,000 who came to see us recently were disenchanted with the teaching service—and they are the young

people, who could be the experienced teachers of 1981. We shall not have them. How on earth the Department wrote that paragraph for the right hon. Lady is beyond me. I suggest that she looks at it and tries to find out what is meant. It does not make a great deal of sense.
I turn next to what is said in the White Paper about capital investment plans. There is a reference in paragraph 38 to
the continued growth in secondary school numbers after the raising of the school leaving age",
and the problems which that will create. For this purpose the Secretary of State will give an increase of £10 million for building programmes by 1975–76. But that means any work to be done will not be successful until 1979 or 1980. If the money is not provided until 1975–76, it will take those three years to spend it.
For the ILEA, paragraph 38 is very futuristic. The minor works programme has been cut to an absurdly low level, and now the authority has been given a special dispensation by the Department to aggregate its moneys into different years. Because the amount has been cut down in those three years to £2,360,000 it has now had to allocate it in another way. Because of the amount of work already in progress, the authority needs about £1,560,000 for 1972–73 just to finish it. Obviously, work cannot be stopped overnight. But even in this sense the Department is insensitive to needs. The ILEA had to beg the Minister to be allowed to reallocate its resources within the global sum.
By 1973–74 the authority will have £500,000 to spend on minor works. In 1974–75 it will have only £300,000 to spend on minor works, and this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) pointed out, for 1,250 schools.
Paragraph 38, therefore, does not make a lot of sense when it is applied to the real issues on the ground. Presumably, it was put in as a sop to those who have no understanding of what the problems are. The Under-Secretary of State has come to the Department at a time when it seems that the Secretary of State is either tired of her job, or does not understand the needs. I commiserate with the Under-Secretary, for he must do his best


to make the Secretary of State understand how important education is, particularly in London, and how essential it is that she gives attention to the special needs of teachers, children and parents.
Parents, too, are living in a strange society in London. There are no desirable residences in my area such as there may be in Aylesbury. We do not have nice four-bedroomed detached houses, with gardens back and front. What people have in my constituency is a flat 15, 20 or 25 storeys up. Neurosis is caused by this sort of living. There are no gardens. The Government will not give me the open space that we need. If anyone sees a tree in my constituency he had better photograph it, because it is the last he will see. The Government just will not allocate the necessary resources to give children in their home environment the sort of things that people take for granted elsewhere.
There are special circumstances both in my area and in inner London generally, and they should be given preferential treatment, as should our building programme. The whole social back-up in inner London should be given special treatment.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say tonight that he understands what we London Members have been saying, and that his reply will enable us to go back to our constituencies and say that the debate was worth while.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I welcome the opportunity that the debate has given London Members to speak on this important issue. I regret that in spite of the size of the population the number of Members who represent the greater London area and the fact that it is the capital city, it is only on occasions such as this that we have an opportunity to discuss many of the key issues that affect us as London Members.
I wish to refer to the cutback in the inner London minor works programmes. The Secretary of State will certainly be familiar with this matter, especially in view of the number of Questions on the subject which have been put to her by inner London Members. Yet in spite of the problems we have brought to her attention, problems of old schools which,

although sound structurally, lack modern amenities and which urgently need money spent upon them, the Secretary of State has been completely unmoved. She appears to take no notice of headmasters, staff, parents, managers, local authorities or the Inner London Education Authority. This year, in spite of all the criticisms of conditions in schools by those groups, the right hon. Lady has reduced the financial allocation for the minor works programmes from a little over £1,500,000 for each consecutive year until 1974–75 when it will stand at £500,000. She argues, in spite of the points made to her about the undesirability of cutting back minor works allocations, that the population is decreasing and therefore the need is not as great and the money is unnecessary.
I am at a complete loss to understand the logic of that argument because in inner London there are over 300 primary schools which were built about 70 years ago. In many of them it is clear that the facilities are totally inadequate for the needs of modern teaching. Only this week I asked the Secretary of State to list the schools she had visited in inner London. She would have first-hand knowledge of the problems in any school she visited. It does not matter whether the school roll is decreasing, although I question whether that is so in many parts of inner London.
During the last few days I received a letter from the Beatrix Potter school which tells me of a special parent/teacher meeting which is planned for tomorrow evening. The letter says:
The parent/teacher committee has called this special meeting to discuss the concern expressed by staff and parents over the appalling lack of space at the school.
That may be a particular problem at that school but virtually every primary and junior school in my constituency faces the same problem and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends from other London constituencies can say the same.
Why should children be taught in buildings which are totally inadequate with substandard accommodation? Why are there in Wandsworth schools with no indoor toilets? We have only to consider the appalling weather of the last few days to realise the difficulties which arise when children have to go to outside toilets. A youngster may have to go


200 or 300 yards across a playground to old-fashioned and inadequate toilet facilities and back to the classroom. It is the teacher's responsibility to dry the child. That is one reason why we complain so bitterly about the cutback in the minor works programme. Money should have been allocated to alleviate these problems to which my hon. Friends have repeatedly referred. Even one or two indoor toilets would be a godsend to the teachers in the dreadful weather we are now experiencing.

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the minor works programme is not financed by the Secretary of State but that she gives permission to the ILEA to spend its own money? The trifling sum involved is about half the cost of the car park in the forecourt of the Palace of Westminster which the House was inveigled and tricked into approving?

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It is the prerogative of the ILEA to decide what money it wishes to spend on its minor works programme. The programme was deliberately cut back by the Secretary of State. Whom did she consult? It is questionable whether she consulted ILEA. If she did, she certainly did not get approval from ILEA to cut down the amount of money it wishes to spend on minor works, especially in primary and junior schools.
In many schools in my constituency which I have visited children are still being taught in corridors. I have been there sometimes in the morning when the school dinners are being prepared and there is great noise and confusion caused by people going backwards and forwards along the corridor. When we ask for money to overcome these problems, it is refused.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Secretary of State was so seized of the argument he is putting that she gave the grant-aided schools £40 million.

Mr. Cox: We know of old the right hon. Lady's priorities. When she was asked at Question Time what were her views on selection, the Secretary of State for Education and Science replied that she had absolutely no opinion on selec-

tion, but we are in no doubt about the kind of selection she favours—the kind that we are opposed to and will continue to oppose.
We have been backed up in our efforts by the divisional education officer in Wandsworth, and he has been informed of the consultations between management and teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) and I are in constant touch with each other. He represents an adjoining constituency to mine. Many youngsters in each constituency go to schools in the adjoining constituency and we have, therefore, a right to be informed about the schools. When we have visited schools we have never been told by the head teachers "We tried to get improvements made here, but our divisional officer was opposed." To his credit he has never opposed them, nor has the ILEA. The argument has always been "Unfortunately, we are not granted the money to make these essential improvements to schools."
The London allowance has been mentioned. Later this week I am to initiate an Adjournment debate on that subject and I shall not now comment on it. After my conversations with teachers I do not doubt that one of the other principal reasons why teachers do not stay in inner London is the appalling conditions in which they have to teach and the knowledge that those conditions will continue for a long time because of the actions forced upon inner London by the Secretary of State. We are told that even though the ILEA wanted to allocate the money the Secretary of State refused to allow it. But we all know that one day the work must be done, and the problem then will be to decide which schools shall have priority.
Under the previous system, when work continued year after year a school with problems at least had the knowledge that possibly in a year or two it would be at the top of the list for the improvements that were needed. There was hope for such schools, but because of the savage cuts many of them have no idea when money will be allocated for them to have the necessary work done. When approval is eventually given, how much will the work then cost? Will it be double or treble the present figure?

Mr. Ronald Brown: Under the present Government, it will cost 10 times as much.

Mr. Cox: With increased costs, the sum needed in three, four or five years' time for the same amount of work will be substantial.
We have had double-talk from the Secretary of State about minor works. She says "I am not interested in the need. All I am interested in is saying that the population is declining."
I challenge the Under-Secretary to tell us exactly how many teachers, managers and headteachers in the inner London area have sent letters of congratulation to the Secretary of State saying "We applaud your action in cutting back on the minor works". I also challenge him to say how many letters of protest he has received from heads, teachers and managers in the London Borough of Wandsworth—I confine myself to my own borough. I give credit to Tory managers there, who are just as opposed as Labour managers to the savage cuts. They completely oppose the policies that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend has been following on minor works in inner London.
The right hon. Lady has been trading on the loyalty of teachers. Whenever public servants' conditions of service or salary are discussed in the House we hear the old arguments that they are too loyal. We have heard that nurses who opposed suggested salary increases would not dare leave their patients suffering. The argument has been advanced about teachers, but it is one that has had its day. I do not believe that teachers—and I am glad that parents are so ably backing them up in their protest—are prepared any longer to tolerate this kind of blind allegiance which the Minister expects which results in their not getting their just returns in terms of salary and improvements to their schools.
I propose to refer to two schools in my constituency in order to give examples of the utter stupidity of the Government's policy. At Furzedown junior school, because of the increased numbers a managers' meeting was held to consider what should be done. I am one of the managers. The headmistress said that there was an urgent need for classroom space. Our divisional officer, who attended

the meeting, said that no money was available for that purpose but that if the parent/teacher association raised £300 he would see that an additional sum was added so that a mobile classroom could be provided. Parents already pay rates and income tax and to ask them to pay an additional £300 so that their children can be taught in a mobile classroom is an utter disgrace.
Members of the parent/teacher association at Wandle junior school give hours and hours of their leisure time each week in order to raise funds for nursery school provision in an area where there are very few leisure facilities. A nursery school would be good not only for the youngsters but for the teachers at the school to which they will go when they are a little older, but despite all the efforts of these teachers they have been told that no such provision can be made.
No thought appears to be given to the effect that that kind of action has on teachers and parents who give freely of their time and money to try to raise funds. The Minister treats them with callous indifference. She tells them that if they want this extra provision they must pay for it out of their own pockets, but that if the sum is so large that they cannot afford it they cannot have what they want.
I know that if the right hon. Lady were here she would put forward the usual old arguments that we hear from Government Ministers. She would no doubt say "I understand the problem, but it is a question of money". I do not believe that that argument thas any substance. What is the right hon. Lady's attitude when she sits in at Cabinet meetings and hears requests for extra money for Concorde? Does she oppose them? Does she oppose the 5 per cent. increase in defence expenditure that we are told is coming up? What did she say when the Chancellor said that he was going to reduce taxes?
I know what the average worker in my constituency thinks about the reduction in taxes. There will be a different story next April when those in the higher income brackets start to receive their tax returns. They will be better off at the end of the day than the rank-and-file workers whom I represent. Did the right hon. Lady ever oppose any of those increases when they were considered by the Cabinet? We are entitled to know.
If the right hon. Lady, who often comes here to answer Questions on education and to reply to education debates, pleads her loyalty to the youngsters, we are entitled to say that if she really means what she says she should tell us what her priorities are for spending the money allocated by the Government. Does she oppose the spending of extra money on Concorde and on giving tax concessions to the rich while opposing the expenditure of extra money on the matters that we have been debating today? We are entitled to know the right hon. Lady's priorities.

Mr. Raison: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the White Paper published today he will see that during the present decade expenditure on education is expected to rise from £2,162 million to £3,120 million, a rise of £960 million at current prices. What employment would the hon. Gentleman find for those who were thrown out of work if Concorde were scrapped?

Mr. Cox: It is a great pity that the hon. Member has not been here for the whole debate, because many comments have been made on this White Paper by my hon. Friends. One of this evening's London papers says that ILEA has already expressed the gravest doubts about what that White Paper will mean in inner London. If he is really interested in education—I know that he was a member of ILEA at one time—he should take part in these debates—

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Cox: No, other hon. Members wish to speak—

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member has made a personal reference—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the other hon. Member must sit down.

Mr. Cox: The events of the last few weeks can have left the Secretary of State in no doubt about the mood of London teachers and parents. I hope she will follow the example of the Prime Minister, who last week admitted at long last that he had made mistakes. I hope the right hon. Lady will say that

she too has made mistakes which have been detrimental to the wellbeing of children in inner London and throughout the country.

Mr. Hamling: And then resign.

Mr. Cox: That would bring pleasure not only to Labour Members but to many people outside, but perhaps that is asking too much.
The right hon. Lady should say that she is aware of the feeling on this issue and is prepared in the next financial year to let ILEA restore the cuts she forced upon it in the minor works programme. That is one way in which a Minister in a Department which comes into contact with what might be called public service employees such as teachers can build up confidence, and confidence is what the right hon. Lady has continued to destroy during the two and a half years she has held office. If she has any love for education, she will show by actions, and not by the words that so often mean nothing, that she is aware of the problems and will do something about them.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has spoken trenchantly about the effects of the present level of minor works expenditure on the educational system of his borough. His point could well be repeated by many of the greater London boroughs, but we consider him an expert on our side in this. His powerful comments speak for all of us, and we hope that the Minister will answer at least some of his questions.
As almost the last speaker on this side in this important debate, I want to concentrate briefly on the issue of the London allowance, a subject on which many of us were lobbied by teachers last week. The lack of an increase in that allowance will have and is having an adverse effect on the quality of education in London's schools.
I am aware that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State could claim that an offer was made. But everyone in his right mind would reject an offer of £15 for the derisory pittance it was obviously intended to be. If the original offer of £12 was an insult, to up it by £3,


after interrupting a Cabinet meeting, was adding insult to insult and injury to injury.
The fact that the Secretary of State thought that after two years with no increase an increase of a mere £15 would suffice for London teachers shows how out of touch she is with educational conditions in the London area. I do not even exempt educational conditions in her London borough of Barnet, which is possibly a more salubrious area in which to live than others but nevertheless has the same sort of problems with the movement of teachers.
The main purpose of increasing London allowance is a very simple educational one, of which the Minister will be aware even if his Secretary of State is not; that is, the very high turnover of teachers in the London boroughs. I have no figures for London boroughs generally, or for the ILEA area, of annual turnover, but over the past three years my London borough of Waltham Forest has had an annual turnover, of all teachers, of about 21 per cent. That means that every year one-fifth of the teachers leave the borough to go elsewhere and a new set of teachers comes in. But the position is even worse than that, because averages such as that can be misleading.
In our schools many middle-aged teachers remain because they are heads of departments and have various allowances, and so on, which tie them to a school; it is also a big wrench to move, particularly if they have a house, and so on, and have lived in a district for some time. We have a great deal of stability among the older teachers, but the 21 per cent. average turnover in my London borough means that among the vitally important age group of younger teachers, in their first ten years, the turnover must be much higher than 21 per cent., and possibly 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. a year. These are the teachers who are most in contact with the younger children.
Waltham Forest is partly an educational priority area, as are many other parts of inner and outer London. In spite of that, the Government are doing nothing to assist us in reducing this very high turnover of teachers. The educational argument will be shared by everyone in

the House, irrespective of party, that it must be bad for children—especially young children—to have a constant succession of teachers, being unable to get used to any one teacher. This means that we are depriving young children of the full educational opportunities they need, deserve and ought to be getting, under any Government who believe in the ideal of educational equality.
Furthermore, the fact that we have such a high turnover in Waltham Forest, and, I suspect, throughout Greater London, means a greater strain on the older teachers, who often have to carry their probationary colleagues who, once qualified, find that they have to go elsewhere to get a house and a better job. "Elsewhere" usually means outside Greater London and into the provinces, where house prices are much lower.
Why this situation? It is surely evident from this debate, if from no other, that the cost of living in Greater London—the cost of fares and housing, whether rented or purchased—is much higher than in the rest of the country. The Nationwide Building Society figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) show the rise in the purchase price of houses. Fares in London are very much higher than in any other urban area. The average level of rents in London is very much higher than it is elsewhere.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that both those elements are a direct result of a Tory GLC which has specifically insisted upon high rents, high fares, and a high cost of living in London?

Mr. Deakins: I do not think that we need blame only the Conservative GLC, although I take the point. It is a matter of Government philosophy generally that in both inner and outer London there is a free market in land and property, but there is no doubt that the high cost of living in greater London, although partly the responsibility of the present Government, is nevertheless something which would have occurred in any case—and any Government would be forced to take action to deal with it. Our complaint is that the fact that the London teachers' allowance is not being raised this year,


after two years at the same level, has greatly exacerbated the situation for teachers in London.
The teachers have a justifiable claim for a substantial increase in the London allowance now to take account of the higher cost of living in London and—more important when younger teachers are looking for houses—of the much higher mortgage repayments which have to be met for houses old and new in London.
Anyone who knows the position in some London boroughs appreciates that local education authorities who are concerned about the quality of education are likely to give a dusty response to the treatment meted out to their teachers by the Secretary of State. My local education authority of Waltham Forest is on record as supporting the teachers' case and regretting the untoward and unprecedented intervention of the Secretary of State in the Burnham negotiations on the London allowance. She has done a great deal of harm.
If the problem is serious now it will become even more so as time goes by, particularly in the next six months. That is why we had the massive lobby of teachers last week, and why teachers are still up in arms because there has been no worthwhile increase. My local teachers—and I am sure that this feeling is shared throughout the London area—want an undertaking that the Secretary of State will not, at the end of Phase One of the prices and incomes policy—the total freeze—interfere again in the Burnham negotiations, whatever that they may hold for prices and incomes, and that there will be fair and free negotiations between management and teachers on the issue of increasing the London allowance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance. If not, we shall press the Secretary of State much more over the next few months.
The only way to ensure proper consideration of this matter and of the quality of education in London schools—and, above all, that we retain young teachers for longer than their probationary period in London schools generally—and to give us the advantage over the rest of the country which is justified by the higher cost of living in London, is

substantially to increase the London allowance as quickly as possible. If it is not now possible under the freeze, it must be possible—since it is essential—as soon as the freeze is over. We are not insisting on this merely for the sake of the teachers. We are concerned above all for the interests of the children, and that depends on the Government's looking after the interests of the younger teachers. That is what the debate is about.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: I apologise for not being here for the whole of the debate, but I have been at a governors' meeting in the inner London education area. I want to intervene to pose a particular problem. The Secretary of State has cut the minor works programme. In justification, she says that there has been a movement of population from the older urban areas. That is true.
What is not appreciated is that in these inner areas there has been a vital need to use the minor works programme to improve the inadequate standards in some of the old schools. Because of the rule of need in building new schools, in inner London the minor works programme has been heavily relied upon to raise standards. Now, because of the vicious cut in the minor works programme, the ILEA is being prevented from getting on with essential jobs needed to bring schools at least to an acceptable standard.
In the inner London education area, there are still schools with unheated outside toilets. Some of them are in the programme for the coming year but others have now had to be cut out of it because of the reduction in the minor works programme. The movement of population out of older urban areas surely cannot justify a cut in the money which is primarily used to make it possible to continue to teach children at a decent standard in these old buildings, which, because of the overall policy, the ILEA and many other authorities in older urban areas are stuck with whether they want them or not.
I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the minor works programme in relation to the older urban areas. If we are to refurbish these schools even to a


minimum standard it is essential at least to get the grant we were getting prior to the 1971–72 allowance.
I join my hon. Friends in making the strongest possible protest at the treatment of London teachers. They have been treated shamefully. As a member of the Inner London Education Authority, I know the great difficulty in retaining teachers. Young people may serve as teachers for a couple of years, but when they marry they consider the astronomical rents charged in London and the astronomical prices of property and they find that it is not possible for them to continue to teach in London. London is losing teachers to the outer areas where housing is perhaps cheaper.
The London allowance, which is supposed to balance the additional cost of teaching in London, does not measure up to current property prices. In view of the derisory offer of £15 over two years, it is not surprising that the teachers are protesting in the strongest possible manner. What is more tragic for London education is that many of them are not potesting. Many of them think that there are easier ways of earning a living. Many of them believe that they can be more properly recompensed for their abilities in other outlets.
It is generally known that the Inner London Education Authority is alarmed at the drift of teachers from London. The Secretary of State would have no objection from ILEA if a substantial increase were made in the London allowance. That is the only way by which we shall be able to continue to man the schools in London and by which a satisfactory and reasonable standard of education can be achieved for the children.

9.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): First, may I look back to the irenic moments which seem so far away when I received the congratulations of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on my appointment to the Department. I appreciated them not only because of the ties of friendship which bind us together but because of the hon. Gentleman's contribution to education. [Interruption.] We have been friends for a long time and I do not intend that my

minor appointment shall come between us.
Secondly, I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) for his good wishes. I reciprocate them because I particularly welcomed his return as a Member of the House some time ago after a period of unavoidable absence due to the activities of the electorate.
This has been a major debate. It has concentrated on London, but it has also ranged across the whole field of education. To do justice to the points which have been made I should have to make a speech of two or three hours. I hasten to add that that is not my intention. But I hope to answer as many as possible of the points which have been raised. Everyone who has spoken has been very well informed about education.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), referring to the minor work programme, asked how many letters of congratulation had been received in the Department. Letters of congratulation are few and far between in politics. Though I am sure that the officials in the Department will be happy to carry out the necessary researches, I should not put too high an expectation on the figure which will eventually emerge.
I am replying to the debate in the context of the publication today of the White Paper on education, which supplies an answer to the rather carping criticisms which have been made in the debate of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) called my right hon. Friend) mean. That was the least charitable of the adjectives which he used. It is extraordinary that that adjective should have been used on the day when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) pointed out, she has secured a 10-year programme for education which will raise the education budget to more than £3,000 million—the highest ever achieved in this country. This is at a time when the White Paper which has influenced our discussion today, is setting out in depth and with literacy the educational aims of the next decade in a way which we have not seen before.
I believe that when some of the criticisms that have been made in this debate have long been forgotten, the White Paper


will be a major vindication of my right hon. Friend's claim to be one of the outstanding Secretaries of State for Education in postwar years. The White Paper must affect our discussions, but we are not discussing it as such. We are discussing the particular problems which are being faced in London.
Before I deal with the detailed discussion, I should like to make one point to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), who rightly feels very strongly about deprivation in education. The hon. Gentleman accredited me with many more academic honours than those to which I am entitled. I had counted, by the time he had finished with me, six firsts.
I am very concerned about wastage of talent in Britain. I fully accept as part of my educational philosophy the very high priority that the Robbins Report gave to mobilising talent in this country. I should be happy, however small that contribution may be, to make some contribution towards helping those with talent to have the opportunity to use it.
I do not mean that I believe that everyone should go to a university or some form of higher education. I mean that we should provide an ever-increasing range of choice, and that we should pay particular attention to those who are living in deprived areas. They are the people who most need help.
We have had seven major subjects raised in the debate, the first being improvements to secondary schools, which was stressed by the hon. Members for Shoreditch and Finsbury and Woolwich, West. The White Paper says that the Government will devote extra resources to the replacement or improvement of the worst secondary schools buildings in the country. To help with that programme there will be an extra £10 million allocated in the building programme for 1975–76 and 1976–77. That is in addition to the existing programme of over £50 million a year for the replacement of old primary schools. That comprises the first stage of a rising secondary school improvement programme for England and Wales.
One cannot do everything at once. However, I think that the priorities of the Government are right. We are concentrating, and we have concentrated in

the past, on primary education. We have moved to extend Government help and aid to nursery education, but we are not neglecting the secondary schools. My right hon. Friend has issued a circular letter today to all local authorities in England inviting proposals for secondary school improvements in 1975–77. For that purpose £18 million will be made available. Priority will be given to schools whose premises include a large proportion which was built before 1902 or a large proportion of temporary accommodation, of which we have had examples mentioned today.
There are many secondary schools in those categories, particularly the first, in the London area, so London will get a good share of the available resources.
In the circular letter my right hon. Friend has laid down two criteria. Here are the actual words of the letter:
With the aim of eliminating the worst deficiencies in existing provision, the resources now available will be concentrated on projects which satisfy either of the following criteria and where there is long term need for the accommodation:

(i) the majority of the teaching accommodation dates from before 1903 and the school is deficient in specialist facilities and ancillary accommodation or amenities;
(ii) at least a third of the teaching accommodation is in temporary construction."
That spells out those two conditions which I have mentioned. My right hon. Friend has also asked the authorities to limit their bid to the one project which they regard as outstandingly urgent.

Mr. Ronald Brown: One?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, one project. That is the request in the letter. The Thomas Calton School in Southwark, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, would presumably be a candidate for the bid. It would, indeed, be a very expensive candidate—it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich—because it would cost £1½ million to replace. There are more than 1,000 children involved in that school.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that I shall not be interrupted on too many occasions, because I have a great many points to answer.

Mr. Barnett: I merely wish to ask whether the Department will take account of the fact that one project in the London area is a different matter as compared with one project for a smaller area such as the West Riding. We have a large number of projects because we have a large authority.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, my right hon. Friend and I recognise the very much more complicated situation which exists in London and that it is not strictly comparable to the position in the West Riding. [Laughter.] There is the other school which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich; I believe it was Charlton. There again, that is a school which would require a large amount of money to be spent on it—about £800,000. [Laughter.] So one project is not as derisory as some hon. Members seem to think.
I turn to the question of re-organisation of education. Hon. Members have totally misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on secondary reorganisation, by taking things that she has said out of context. They know very well that when she said that she did not have a view on this question of reorganisation, she was clearly indicating in the context of her remarks that her view is that she will not impose a particular view on the local authorities from the centre. She made her position quite clear in circular 10/70 when she expressed her wish to restore to local education authorities their freedom to decide whether or not to submit reorganisation proposals. She has considered well over 2,300 proposals affecting secondary schools and she has rejected 101. That, I think, puts this question into some kind of perspective.
My right hon. Friend has emphasised that she will not impose a national pattern, but the figures I have given show beyond all doubt that she has no hostility to comprehensive development of schools as such. The statistics simply do not bear out that distortion of her views. What she certainly accepts is that while comprehensive education is the system of education that will develop fastest in the future, she quite rightly refuses to make an idol of comprehension and to pretend that it is a solution to all our educational difficulties irrespective of local conditions.
She has particularly set her mind, and quite rightly, against botched-up schemes which are comprehensive only in name and do not provide the advantages of comprehension which a new school with new buildings would do. We believe that the responsibility for proposing changes in a local pattern of organisation rests with the local authority. It is not for us to lay down a diktat from Whitehall. We do not believe that the man in Whitehall necessarily always knows best. [HON. MEMBERS: "Except on rents."] That was a statement containing a nuance. I said "necessarily", thus saving myself, I hope, from complications later.
The other point in relation to reorganisation which must be remembered is the very large capital resources which are being made available to meet basic needs and which forward the reorganisation plans of local authorities. An authority with approved reorganisation proposals would in virtually every case be building new schools which would be comprehensive. It is important to grasp that fact in the context.
Let us look at the facts. Let us not be deceived by mythologies that try to represent either Government policy or the Secretary of State as being opposed to comprehensive education. That is not so. Her attitude is one based not on a doctrinaire approach but on a sensible appraisal of the situation. The ILEA is pursuing its review of secondary school provision. It has its views and plans which it has submitted. Those plans are submitted against a background of substantially reduced demand for secondary school places by 1980. One must see that as the essential context in which its plans are being put forward. Two green papers have been published and further papers will follow. The series of green papers will provide a basis for a wide discussion. After that, final decisions will have to be reached. Such decisions would be premature at the present time.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is the Under-Secretary saying that under paragraph 50 the ILEA will be able to have smaller numbers of children in classes than the figure of 30 he stands by at the moment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is no rule affecting particular numbers of pupils in classrooms. But I shall deal with that


point, though I would prefer to deal with it when it comes more logically later in association with one of the other subjects.
I should like to touch on the position in Ealing, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). He exaggerated the dispute existing between the Department of Education and Science and the local authority. Ealing's proposals for full reorganisation were published between February and April, 1972. The majority, including those concerned with high schools, were approved in August, 1972. Approximately 130 schools are involved, including all the borough schools and the Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. The implementation of the scheme has been deferred by one year but the proposals have been approved. I know of the difficulty faced by the Borough of Ealing. It has a large proportion of immigrant children for whom special provision has to be made. I hope what I have said puts that matter into context.
I come to the question of the minor works programmes. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) referred to several individual schools. He named one of them, the Strand school, and mentioned three others though not by name. I know that he has a Question down to my right hon. Friend on the subject. Hon. Members will realise that I cannot be expected to comment in detail on individual schools in a debate of this kind. I can only say that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about individual schools and draw attention to particular problems, I shall investigate the matter on his behalf. That goes for both the school which he identified and those which he did not.
I say the same to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, who expressed dissatisfaction with the provision at two schools in his constituency. There have been other references to individual schools. We shall look into them—and look into them sympathetically. I thought that the hon. Member for Acton was most unfair to the officials in the Department when he accused them of being unsympathetic and unfeeling. They are not. In fact, they are extremely scrupulous to take account of every local variation and all the needs of a local situation, though, in the nature

of things, they cannot always satisfy the demands put upon them, any more than I can myself.

Mr. Spearing: I was expressing an often-expressed view in most staff rooms, and I referred in particular to the school space regulations, which, I believe, are unrealistic. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in HANSARD, he will find that that is so.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whether it comes from school staff rooms or conies from the hon. Gentleman, my point is valid, that the accusation is entirely unfair, unwarranted and is based on no facts or evidence.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West gave the figures of the minor works programme, and they tally with the figures which we have in the Department, so I conclude that they must be correct. It is true that the minor works figures are going down in relation to greater London, but one must not consider them in isolation. One must see the minor works allocation as an integral part of the resources which are available to meet basic needs.

Mr. Thomas Cox: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I fear that the wrath of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central will once more break upon me. It broke previously upon my right hon. Friend, and now I am going to get it as well.
The school population of England and Wales is increasing whereas the inner London school population is expected to fall, from just over 400,000 to about 380,000. It is in fact going down.

Mr. Cox: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to get on? I know how strongly he feels about it, but we shall not agree on this subject.

Mr. Spearing: What has all this to do with need?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It has to do with need because the minor works programme is associated with the basic needs programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Poppycock."] No, it is not.
My right hon. Friend has done two things, for which she should be given


credit, which will be of help to inner London. She has agreed that managers and governors of schools in inner London should be free in 1972–73 and. subject to certain detailed arrangements still to be worked out, in subsequent years, to carry out minor projects costing less than £1,000 each outside the authority's minor works allocation within its own allocation of revenue expenditure under their "alternative use of resources" scheme. She has also allowed the ILEA to treat its minor works allocations for the three years 1972 to 1975 as one and she has left it to ILEA to decide, in pursuance of her principle of giving as much autonomy as possible, to spread the work over this period.
The hon. Member for Acton raised the issue of staffing and the same subject was also touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton). In general, school staffing standards in greater London are better than in the country as a whole, which is an essential fact which must be remembered when considering the problem. The ratio is good but the picture is not so good when it comes to wastage and turnover.

Mr. Spearing: That is the point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is not the only point. There are two sides to the question—staffing, and wastage and turnover. The picture is good in one and not so good in the other. We do not have detailed information from the local authorities on this point but there is certainly reason to believe that the ILEA and probably some of the outer London boroughs suffer more from wastage and turnover than do authorities generally. That would seem to indicate a higher than average turnover of teaching staff, but this occurs in other places as well as London.
The turnover in Leeds is 15 per cent. and the turnover in other parts of the country is on occasions higher than the turnover in London. Fourteen per cent. of the teachers in the service of the ILEA are probationers compared with the national average of 10·3 per cent. But in Manchester it is 12·2 per cent., in Liverpool 9·7 per cent. and in Birmingham 14·9 per cent. I would have thought that the age structure of the teaching profession in London would have something to do with the wastage there. It

is also likely that a number of young teachers who intend to stay in teaching may take advantage of the mobility which they enjoy before they are tied down by family responsibilities and decide to move out to areas where housing is cheaper and where they can set up their homes—[Interruption.] I do not seek to deny that there is a severe problem of housing accommodation in London, but that problem affects everyone who lives in London and not only teachers. I have sympathy with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Greenwich that the Department should make special housing accommodation available for teachers, but that is not a practical possibility. This is clearly a problem which will have to be looked at because I fully accept that it presents difficulties for teachers.
Nursery education was referred to. Here I turn to the White Paper because the section on the expansion of nursery education is one of the most positive and constructive parts of it. I believe that opinion would meet with general agreement.
The Department has today sent to the local authorities, the teachers associations, ILEA and the churches the draft circular which was promised in the White Paper. We want to have plans for nursery education by Easter and to be able to allocate resources to nursery education for 1974–76 during the summer of next year.
I remind those who are always accusing my right hon. Friend of elitism that she has had a particular concern for nursery education. By helping children at that stage we are making a major contribution to a more egalitarian society. It is precisely the children in deprived homes who suffer more from lack of parental support than children who come from more secure and more affluent homes. My right hon. Friend should be given full credit for that, and I am glad to see that on that point we are in agreement.
The sixth major subject raised in the debate is immigrant children, particularly educationally subnormal children. The hon. Member for Greenwich who raised this is an acknowledged expert on the subject. I need not go into the figures because they are all present in the minutes of the Select Committee on Race


Relations and Immigration. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high proportion of immigrant children, particularly West Indian children who are in educationally subnormal schools.
I regard that not as something to be alarmed about but as something to be glad about. In the London area we have especially good provision for educationally subnormal children and so are able to help those children who are desperately in need of help. The question arises why this should be so, and there are several explanations which could be advanced. Perhaps the language question impinges here. West Indian children can speak some English whereas other immigrant children cannot and, therefore, perhaps a higher proportion of educationally subnormal children are detected amongst the West Indian group than amongst other groups of immigrants.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in which Caribbean island English is not spoken?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not say that; I made the opposite point. I said that all West Indians could speak some English whereas other immigrants may speak no English at all. Because of this, educational subnormality, which may exist in other groups, is detected earlier in the West Indian group.
Important issues are involved here. Whilst a full-scale inquiry is neither necessary nor planned, we are considering within the Department what further guidance can be given about the assessment of the educational needs of handicapped children, including the immigrant children. I hope that after we have had consultations with a number of the professions involved we shall be able to give further guidance on this subject.
I turn finally to the last, and perhaps the most contentious, subject, that of London teachers' allowances. I say to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury that critics of the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, criticise her for not caring and not feeling and on the other hand criticise her because she takes the trouble to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on the subject. [Laughter.] She might be criticised for one attitude or the other,

but if she is criticised on both grounds grave doubts are raised of the bona fides of the criticism and whether means are being sought to criticise her regardless of the grounds.
It is clear that the purpose of the London allowance is to compensate for the higher cost of living in London as compared with the rest of the country. It is not, and never was, intended to be a means of recruiting teachers for difficult schools. Other provisions are made for schools of exceptional difficulty. A whole list of criteria applies there, such as the social and economic status of the parents, the absence of amenities in the home, the proportion of the children in school receiving free meals, and so on. That is an entirely different problem, and should not be confused with the present problem. Nor is the allowance a cost of living allowance as such, which would go up and down with an index—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not down."] Wait and see.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not provoke the Minister. He has already been speaking for 35 minutes.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this has been a major education debate, with points raised by experts on the subject, and I am doing my best to reply to those points. However, I shall cut short my remarks on the London teachers' allowance because I understand that it will be raised a little later in the week.
I agree that the allowance is a fairly blunt instrument, because it is an average that cannot deal with individual cases. We must take the case of teachers whose circumstances may be very different. Within the average some may well benefit more than others. But I want to make it plain that the London allowance is based not on any arbitrary figure but on indices which deal with rents, housing costs and fares in the greater London area. They take into account not only those living in rented accommodation but those living in owner-occupied accommodation.
In deference to Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into details of the indices, but it is not true that housing is not taken into account.
The amount of the allowance has altered over the years. It started at £70


and went up to £85 in 1967 and to £118 in 1970. It has been altered in accordance with the set indices. Therefore, it is completely inaccurate to say that my right hon. Friend has in some way intervened arbitrarily with the working of the indices. The indices may be criticised, but my right hon. Friend has been tied by them, just as the Burnham Committee has been tied by them.
I should like to deal with the development of events, because there has been misrepresentation and misunderstanding over the 1972 arbitration. When the arbitration body made its recommendations on the allowance in 1972, it made no recommendation as to the amount. The first recommendation was purely as to the date; it said that the allowance should remain at £118 until 31st October this year and that whatever amount was recommended by the Burnham Committee, the body responsible, revision should take effect from 1st November this year.
That point has been obscured.
On 20th September—and this is the operative date—a claim was put in for £300 on the part of the teachers. They had upped their original claim on that date by £80, but they submitted no new evidence. That was considered, and the employers promised that an offer would be made on 20th October. Meanwhile the tripartite talks had got under way, and all parties in the negotiations were asked to do nothing which might be inconsistent with the proposals under discussions. The body concerned, being a responsible body, paid heed to that. It was bound to do so. It could not go against the wishes of the Government in this respect. It was the duty of that body to listen to the advice of the Government on this matter.
The employers offered £130 after—

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that I should.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, during the debate, one hon. Member asks another to confirm

something and is told by that hon. Member that he wishes to deal with it when summing up, is it not in order to repeat the question at that stage?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That seems to have been disposed of.
The tripartite talks broke down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out that there are about 15 other topics for debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to be as brief as possible with a complicated subject that is of great importance to the hon. Members who are present.
The tripartite talks broke down on 2nd November, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who had arranged to see the teachers and employers on 3rd November told them that she would not seek to prevent the employers from making an offer but she could not guarantee that that offer would be met unless it was reached that day, since it was common knowledge that some kind of freeze was contemplated.
It was on that day that the employers offered £130. It was later raised to £133. It was a genuine, substantive offer that was then turned down by the teachers, except the colleges of education lecturers. The Secretary of State went out of her way to see that that offer was made available to teachers. Far from being a derisory and arbitrary sum, it was a sum of money based on the indices, and it was a perfectly reasonable sum in the light of past negotiations and past increases.
Summing up the last point—and this concludes my speech—my right hon. Friend has throughout behaved correctly and fairly towards teachers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She has. No case has been made against her, and those who attempt to misrepresent her position deserve sharp censure. I exempt hon. Gentlemen opposite because I am sure that they have innocently been deceived by the campaign and propaganda directed against her.

Orders of the Day — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of raising on the Consolidated Fund this rather daunting topic of Prime Ministerial, Central Policy Review Staff, Treasury and Government Departments' relations with the financial institutions of the City of London is to seek enlightenment.
There is no spirit of vituperation. Indeed, on Monday I took the unusual course of sending my full notes to the office of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the hope that the Treasury would be as forthcoming as possible, and it goes without saying that I am quite content that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department is to answer the debate.
I start from the basic premise that, like it or not, we find ourselves in the early stages of a new, major field of intervention in trying to run a mixed economy.
I refer to the intervention in the settling of relative incomes. Henceforth we shall be moving slowly but surely towards a position in which it is either the Government, or some other body to which they delegate their powers which will be the final arbiter in the awarding of different jobs, occupations and professions. This will not happen overnight, but in the long run, and doubtless after many economic squalls and political storms, it is as certain as night follows day that incomes policy should move in this direction.
When I sat through the debate on the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill, I pitied some hon. Members on the Government side who fondly imagined that they would be told about some short-term anti-inflationary device. Of course it was nothing of the kind. What we are up to is something quite different—namely, starting along the road to an alternative to the present system for settling relativities. The present proposals may be put forward as temporary, but no one with the intelligence of Treasury Ministers or the Parliamentary Secretary can conceivably believe that in 1973–74 a British Government will gaily abandon

the whole exercise and go back to free bargaining. If the pause were ended, we should be swept away by the flow waters of the melting ice.
As was brilliantly spelled out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) at a Lefta meeting in October, given the legitimate aspirations of British people and trade unions, reflecting the feelings and traditions of their members, the general demand management techniques which we have known since Keynes are no longer an adequate way of combating inflation, except perhaps at the price of a level of unemployment which is morally indefensible and politically impossible. Frank Chapple's power workers will not be deterred by threats of being thrown out of a job, and that is a fact of life with which all Governments will have to live from now on.
It follows from this, put in shorthand terms, that we must come to what might loosely be called the concept of fairness packages. At least by the fourth or fifth of those packages there will be a serious if imprecise demand that the Government of the day must do something about the City, because restraint will not be acceptable for wages and salaries if share prices and other things associated with the City soar indecently.
We need not go over that. It was covered very fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) during the passage of the Finance Bill. This is not the point of dispute. It is a fact of life and not worth arguing about, so I ask the general question: do the Government see a new era in relations between Westminster, Downing Street. Great George Street, Whitehall and the City of London and, if so, what are at least their interim reflections?
This may be a particularly opportune moment to ask the question, because one key committee appears to have reached the end of its work and another is just beginning. I refer to those under James Robertson and Jeremy Morse. What can we be told of the report of the Inter-Bank Research Organisation under the chairmanship of its director, James Robertson, to the Central Policy Review Staff? Has he recommended a task force to be composed of full-time members,


drawn on secondment from the Government and the private agencies? If so, precisely what is to be the task of the task force? In particular would such a task force have a brief to interfere with profit rises and other activities in the City of London which might be prejudicing the Government's prices and incomes and industrial relations policies?
Although delicate, the question is so important that I repeat it. What should be the task of the task force? On this, because notice has been given, I hope we will have some enlightenment. There should be some comment, even if it is of a stalling nature, in the winding-up speech.
Secondly, is it true that Mr. Robertson suggested that the Treasury and the Bank of England should review the workings of monetary and fiscal policy so far as they affect the institutional structure and efficiency of the financial services industry? Thirdly, is there any significant movement in governmental circles which takes the view that, while monetary and fiscal day-to-day decisions should be left to the Treasury and the Bank of England, the political and socio-economic relations between Government and City, arising from the situation that I have tried to sketch, should be taken from Great George Street and, as it is put, to avoid confusion, be transferred to Downing Street?
When I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time a fortnight ago whether he would set up a Department of the Prime Minister, I was not the only one who thought that the operative words in his answer that he had no plans at present to do so were "at present".
I can quite see that a persuasive reason for having a Department of the Prime Minister stems from the prospect of direct Prime Ministerial relations with the City. Can we be certain that before any plans for a Department of the Prime Minister are settled Parliament can at least have a Green Paper-type debate on the matter. I am not saying that I am against a Department of the Prime Minister. I know that some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who really looked at this matter in some detail, are not necessarily against it. But it means altering many of the so-called British

traditions, and Parliament ought to have a debate on this if that is to be the plan contemplated, either in the light of Robertson or for other reasons.
What action will be taken on Mr. Robertson's suggestion that the Department of Trade and Industry should reexamine all the Government regulations affecting the City? We can all conjure up the enchanting picture of the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry burning midnight oil and rising from his bed early in the morning to apply himself to such a task. Will this be the position in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry finds himself? When is Mr. Robertson's full report likely to be published, if it is likely to be published? At first sight, I do not see why it should not be published straight away, granted that the Government will want some time to think about it. But so will the City, so will Members of Parliament, and all the rest who will be concerned. If the promise is to be open government, I see no reason why Mr. Robertson's five volumes—if that is the number—should not be published and made available.
One central question concerns the basis on which the task force is to approach its job. Do the Government take the view that the City, or units of it, is the commanding heights of a corporatist economy, over which some sort of firm grip must be held if their Industrial Relations Act and prices and incomes policies are to work at all? Or do the Government see the City as basically a financial services industry, not much different from other industries, whose best contribution to Britain is secured by freedom from Government interference under minimal general laws on competition and honest dealing?
These questions were well put by The Times leader—or The Times leak—on St. Andrew's Day. I should like to know when the answer will be revealed. Without pressing it too much, I am a little curious to know how a newspaper found out quite so much about a supposedly currently confidential report. I know the job of the Press; so does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department. But without making too much fuss about it, it is worth asking how The Times got quite so much information.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury): I am also intrigued to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of what I think he described as "the corporatist economy", which has the most shady history. Is he really as much in favour of it as he appears to be?

Mr. Dalyell: A long answer to that would incur the displeasure of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps "corporatist" is not the happiest of words. With that I agree. Some kind of collective, coherent power would satisfy the argument in the context in which I asked the question of the Government.
We go from Robertson to Morse. Although it may be denied with a watery smile, I assert that we would have had no Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act, at any rate yet, had it not been for the great unmentionable, the run on sterling. Everyone knew it from the debate. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) mentioned it specifically. Anyone who has had anything to do with Government knows only too well what it is like. Vividly I recollect the gloom of the then Minister for Housing, whose PPS I was, when he learnt that Jonkheer Emile Van Lennep, the chairman of Working Group No. 3, wanted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
The simple reflection would be the ailment of the time. Be it raging inflation, stunted growth, or unemployment figures, we return to international monetary problems, delicate ground though it is.
Vividly it has been put in a nutshell by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society, which he entitled "Bradshaw Revisited", on 15th November last. My right hon. Friend said:
What the banks urged upon me was that no one could possibly foresee how many holders of sterling would seek to convert their sterling. They were in the position, they said, of cloakroom attendants. They knew how many cloakroom tickets had been issued; they could not know how many holders would rush to collect their raincoats on a sudden change of weather.
It was like that in 1947, again in 1966 and again in 1972.
I want to know what general guidelines the British Government, among 20 or 30 others, want to put to Mr. Morse and his committee. I see the Minister shrinking into his cushions. I realise that this is delicate ground, but there is an issue here. I believe that the Morse Committee is, rightly or wrongly, in the long term the most important committee sitting at the present time. It affects all our constituents. Unless we get this right, we shall have the same troubles all over again—what we went through in 1966 and what the present Government went through in 1972. We look to the Morse Committee to do something about ending that kind of depressing sequence, and I ask again what action the British Government are taking to brief Mr. Morse and his colleagues in their international capacity. For the British people, there is no more important body of men sitting on any committee anywhere today. I do not suggest that most of them realise it, but in my view it is the fact of the situation.
I have kept my speech deliberately short for these and other reasons. Treasury Ministers and their advisers will doubtless content themselves with picking many holes in what I have said. But a hole-picking reply would perhaps just be a little bit too easy. I hope that they will resist the temptation and answer in a forthcoming manner, in the same spirit as the questions—of which they have had some notice—were put.

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for sending me a copy of his speech earlier this week. It enabled us to see the rather wider range of subjects he intended to cover than would be imagined by reading the title of the debate. Indeed, they ranged over such a wide area that we decided earlier it could not be left to a mere Treasury Minister to reply. Of course there are certain disadvantages in that, as the hon. Member has said, he expects a rather detailed reply. But he sent me abbreviated notes—the warp and weft—and he has embroidered a rich tapestry from them.
The hon. Gentleman has dealt with five major points—the "think tank" or Central Policy Review Staff; the Inter-Bank


Research Organisation's report; the Prime Minister's Department, en passant; the counter-inflationary measures and whether these indicate a real change of direction in demand management; and the relationships between the Treasury and the City of London. I start with the think-tank, Lord Rothschild's CPRS.
I begin by reminding the House of the functions of the CPRS and explaining briefly how it comes to be taking an interest in the City and what: its connection is with the Inter-Bank Research Organisation. I would like to try to put some flesh on what I might term Lord Rothschild's bones. As hon. Members will probably remember, the CPRS was set up by the present Government in October 1970. Its role was clearly explained in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government. Briefly, its main task is to advise Ministers collectively—I stress "collectively"—on major issues of policy which are either interdepartmental or strategic—I emphasise "strategic"—as the difficulty with all Governments, of whatever party, is that the immediate crisis tends to divert one from one's long-term strategy.
The whole idea is that the think-tank should be thinking about the long-term strategy of the Government. Its work programme is approved by Ministers and it takes several forms. For example, there are the regular six-monthly reviews of Government strategy, attended by all Ministers. One took place this morning at Downing Street. It also reports on specific topics and in a few cases these reports may be published—for example Lord Rothschild's Green Paper on the organisation of Government research and development.
The House may like to know that in the course of a recent series of visits which I have been making to other countries in Europe to see how their central machinery of government is organised, I found that although arrangements in other countries are different, a number of Governments are looking at arrangements for think-tanks very similar to that of Lord Rothschild. The Dutch Government are in process of setting up something on very similar lines. This is a matter in which we are something of a pace setter and is something to be proud of.
The staff of the CPRS is small—only 28. It is located in the Cabinet Office. One of its main functions is to draw the ideas of outside individuals and organisations into policy consideration. Among the items in its current work programme is a study of the future of London as an international financial centre—a subject of great importance at any time but particularly in the context of our entry into Europe. This is a very good example of the kind of subject the think-tank can do. It is trans-departmental in nature; it needs to be looked at in a time-scale stretching several years ahead.
To help with its study, an arrangement was made for a report to be submitted to the CPRS by the Inter-Bank Research Organisation, which I should now like briefly to describe. This organisation is a research unit of high professional standing—it is a form of financial consultants—and it is financed by the London and Scottish clearing banks. Its basic job is to do research on problems of interest to the banking industry, and it has dealt with many problems. In no sense does it speak officially for the clearing banks, nor does it normally represent their interests in discussions with other interested parties.
The clearing banks generously agreed to make IBRO's services available to the CPRS. The proviso was written into IBRO's terms of reference that the report would reflect the views of its authors only and not those of the clearing banks or of the CPRS. The report was recently submitted to the think-tank. In the light of the publicity given to it in the Press, I do not think I am breaching any confidence when I say that its main theme was that the Government and the City should work together to ensure that the City developed in ways consistent with its own interests and with the wider national economic interest.
The hon. Member asked what were the Government's views on particular topics arising from the report. He also asked whether the report would be published. I shall be as frank as I can. In general there may well be good reasons for publishing reports of this kind to encourage informed public discussion. However, it would be premature for me to comit the Government tonight. The report covers


a wide and very complex field. It is of interest to many Government Departments and Ministers. Its contents reflect a large number of confidential interviews. The clearing banks, as its authors' sponsors, plainly have views about it. I hope the House will agree that it is too soon for the Government to make a firm commitment to publish. However, I assure the hon. Member that I shall give most careful consideration to what he has said about publication.
I should like to take this opportunity of reminding the House that the Government do not pay lip service to open government but practise it. We have published a large number of Green Papers, particularly, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) will know, on taxation. There was a Green Paper on corporation tax. A very distinguished Select Committee did admirable and outstanding work on it. I was glad to be a member of the Committee. There was a Green Paper on value added tax, a Green Paper on research and development and one on inheritance tax. There is also the Green Paper on tax credits, for which another Select Committee has been set up. This is something of which we can be proud.

Mr. Dalyell: Shall we have a Green Paper on the Department of the Prime Minister before it is set up?

Mr. Baker: That is a very interesting question. Not only has the hon. Member been thinking about it, but the Leader of the Opposition has been thinking about it too. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Royal Statistical Society, which I commend to the House—it was vintage stuff, a combination of the diary and Varoomshka—he said in assessing the think tank:
It is my view"—
he was talking about the position of the Prime Minister's office—
we shall need not perhaps another DEA"—
that was modest—
though its creation has led to permanent and beneficial changes in Government forward planning but certainly a much strengthened Prime Minister's Department with staff involved at an early stage in departmental policy formation and the work of lower and medium level interdepartmental committees".
I have noticed that the interest of former Prime Ministers when talking about a

Prime Minister's department increases in inverse proportion to their chances of running one.
However, this is a very interesting area of central Government. I should not be prepared to commit the Government, if changes are made, to publishing a Green Paper. I do not read into the reply which the hon. Member for West Lothian received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day the inference which he reads into it. My right hon. Friend said that he had no plans to do so at the moment. That is usually considered to be a polite but final way of saying that he is not going to Dundee, Heywood and Royton or West Lothian. Nothing should be read into what my right hon. Friend said. But, as I say, this is an interesting matter. It interests me in my responsibility for machinery of government. It is worthy of a fuller debate as it is an area in which changes occur. It depends to some extent on the personality and temperament of the Prime Minister. But the question of a fully fledged move to set up a Prime Minister's department was properly and adequately dealt with by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with this matter very decently and I hesitate to interrupt him, but the important point to some of us is that, without reflecting on the merits or demerits of whoever is Prime Minister, there is some worry about a move towards the presidential system. If a department of the Prime Minister is set up, some power will go from other great Departments of State and I think that before the Treasury, in particular, loses any power the matter should be fully debated by Parliament. That is why the question of a Green Paper is a point of substance.

Mr. Baker: The Treasury would probably agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the Treasury ever thought that part of its powers might be taken away, it would be in the forefront of those wanting the matter to be fully debated.
The hon. Member raised the question of the wide implications which may be implicit in phase two of the Government's prices and incomes policy. This


matter is a little to one side of the general debate. The hon. Gentleman claimed that we were moving to a situation in which the Government or some other body would be the final arbiter of how different jobs, occupations and professions were rewarded so that there would be somebody allocating job differentials in money terms and if the pause ended and if an organisation were not set up we would be swept away by the flood-water of melted ice. All Governments must take a view on incomes policy in a modern democratic society, and there can be no question of opening the floodgates to a complete free-for-all at the end of the standstill.
We have made it quite clear that the purpose of the standstill is to enable a viable policy to be developed for the period after the standstill. Obviously in phase two it will be necessary for the appropriate guidance to be given, but that is not the same as a rigid system in which the Government determine rates of pay for individual groups of workers.
We are very conscious of the problems involved in creating an effective and not over-rigid longer-term policy. We are therefore considering carefully what possible courses of action and institutions would enable the broad objectives of the tripartite talks to be pursued, so that the aim which we all desire—the real improvement of the living standards of the British people—can be achieved.
The last point to which the hon. Member for West Lothian referred was the relationship between the Government and the City of London. The Treasury's responsibilities for the Government's economic and financial policy give it a central interest in a good deal of the work of the City and the financial institutions generally. For example, the Treasury is responsible for monetary and credit policy, which obviously is of major importance to the banking system. It is also responsible for National Debt questions. A large proportion of that debt is held by banks, insurance companies and institutions in the City. On the international side, exchange rate policy and exchange control regulations are essential to what goes in the City.
Treasury Ministers are also responsible for the Government's relationship, for example, with building societies. These institutions are not always in the City. I have the largest one in my constituency. None the less, they are significant financial institutions.
The channel of communications between the Treasury and the banking community—the clearing banks, the accepting houses, the issuing houses and overseas and foreign banks—has traditionally been via the Bank of England, which is itself a banker and financial institution, and has always been in a unique position to represent the City's views to the Government and vice versa.
By and large I think that most people concerned, both in the City and in Whitehall, believe that the system has worked reasonably well over the years. But the Government are always conscious of the need to examine existing patterns and relationships in the light of changing circumstances, and particularly at the moment in view of our entry into Europe. The IBRO report will provide an interesting contribution in this particular field.
It is not only the Treasury which has relationships with the City. The Department of Trade and Industry has relations in the City—for example, with mergers and the policing of the insurance industry.
But to deal with the City geographically, it is a unit; it is the square mile. It is close together, but it is united only in its geography.
For example, there are a variety of different types of banks. There are clearing banks, merchant bankers, investment bankers, industrial bankers, overseas bankers and foreign bankers. Let us consider brokers. There are ship-brokers, insurance brokers, stockbrokers, money brokers, marriage brokers of the corporate kind and strippers and filleters. The activities of some of them are carried out by the same institution. There is usually fierce competition. and that is all good for business.
The City is not one city, but many cities, and the relationships between the various sectors of the City are complex and constantly changing. These relationships can be summed up in the phrase "the City".
But that gives too much of a monolithic impression of what in practice is a great variety of competing and different activities. The City's claim is that it is the world's leading financial centre. That claim is based on the fact that it can provide the whole range of financial services to which I have just referred. That has given the City a strong competitive advantage, the various services complementing and supplementing each other, producing a unity which is much greater than the sum of all the parts of it. It is very adaptable and constantly moving.
A few years ago a lot of the business now done in the City did not exist—for example, the Euro-currency market and the Euro-bond markets. The development of these markets was made possible by a well-developed banking and foreign exchange system. The growth of London's worldwide insurance business has been made possible only because there are outlets in the City for the enormously large-scale investment funds that insurance generates. New markets have been created in the last few years—the local authority market, the inter-bank market. certificates of deposits and so on.
It is not appropriate in this debate to dwell at length on the invisible earnings of the City, but one short statistic may be of interest to the House. Export earnings per head in manufacturing industry throughout the country are about £900 a year. The export earnings per head of the City are about £1,800 a year. This is something of which we as a Government, and as a country, are proud, and I know that the previous Government were equally proud of it.

Mr. Dalyell: Many of us have been bumped around by the Euro-dollar problem. May I now repeat the question which I asked, quite seriously, about the evidence that the Government are giving to the Morse Committee. Surely there must be such evidence, and I do not see why it should not be published and laid before the House. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to go into detail now, but may I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Baker: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Morse Committee falls

definitely and precisely within the responsibility of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dalyell: That is why I sent my notes to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Baker: I agree, but with respect, the question of the Morse Committee is not in order on the Consolidated Fund. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about it, and I share his concern. It is an important committee, and I shall make sure that the views which he has expressed are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to intervene again, but may I put one last point? The hon. Gentleman says that the Morse Committee does not arise on the Consolidated Fund. I was told by the Table Office that anything in home policy came within the debate on the Consolidated Fund. What the Morse Committee does or does not do is an absolutely jugular issue of home policy. It is far more important than many of the things which we discuss. To say that the Morse Committee does not come within the Consolidated Fund is like saying that one cannot raise the question of the Morse Committee in the House at all.

Mr. Baker: I would say no such thing; the hon. Gentleman misinterprets me to some extent. Indeed, if he had not done the nice thing and sent me a copy of his notes, I do not imagine that anyone would have foreseen that the question of the Morse Committee would come up in this debate. I do not want to stifle discussion of the Morse Committee and the work which Mr. Morse will be doing on behalf of the Government, and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's views are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
It would he wrong for me, or any Treasury Minister, to be complacent about the role of the City of London. Let me hasten to add that I do not consider that London's present advantages entitle it to become automatically the financial centre of an enlarged European Community. Before London could lay claim to such a title we should have to be sure, and the City would have to be sure, that we were providing all the services which our new partners in the Community required, and that we were


doing so more efficiently and more cheaply than anyone else. The City institutions are well aware of this, and so are the Government. That is one of the reasons why the CPRS commissioned IBRO to produce this report

Orders of the Day — UGANDAN ASIANS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Timothy Raison.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Roy-ton): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to comment on the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).

Mr. Barnett: On a poi It of order. I understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on the Consolidated Fund it was open to any hon. Member to speak. We have been discussing a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I wish to comment on what has been said. Is there any reason why I should not be able to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The calling of hon. Members to speak is in the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Oh, no!

Mr. Timothy Raison: I find it hard to decide whether it is more odd or more typical of the House of Commons—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Lewis: I am taking up the point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on it and there can be nothing further to it. Has the hon. Member a new point of order?

Mr. Lewis: On a new point of order, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, until you have heard what I have to say, you cannot say whether it is a point of order. My point of order is this. While—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him, he began by saying "Further to the point of order".

Mr. Lewis: Then I shall raise a point of order now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While we all acknowledge that the calling of hon. Members to speak is completely within the control of the Chair, is it not custom and practice on the part of the occupant of the Chair to call, so far as possible, a Member from each side in turn, if there is one present and wishing to speak, to take part in the debate? With great respect, I am not for a moment suggesting that any partiality is shown by the Chair, but if two hon. Members from the same side are called to speak at a time when one from the other side wishes to speak, that might tend to show that partiality is being shown.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member raises this as a point of order. It is is hardly that. He mentioned matters of custom. It is for the Chair, as the hon. Member has acknowledged, to say who shall speak next. In practice, when a Minister has sat down the Chair moves to the next subject which has been mooted or agreed in the order of debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I in no way wish to dispute a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it will be recognised that the speakers in the last debate were brief. In those circumstances it is not extraordinary that the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has come in specially for the debate, should not be called, knowing full well that he will follow the tradition of brevity as is his wont?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Incidentally, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) had risen long before the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on the Opposition Front Bench, so I called him.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: It is extraordinary that the House of Commons should not have discussed the question of the Ugandan Asians at any time since the crisis broke during the summer. I do not want to initiate a general debate on this subject this evening. I do not think this would be the time or place to do so. I wish to speak specifically on


the aspects of the subject which I tried to define when I put down my topic of the resettlement of the Ugandan Asians and the extent to which we are able to safeguard their financial interests.
The Government were right in their approach to this problem and in particular in admitting the Ugandan Asians to this country. Essentially the reason for this was that it was always understood that there were certain circumstances in which we would be bound to admit these categories of people.
When the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Home Secretary, he said specifically:
I was asked what we would do about a man who was thrown out of work and ejected from the country. We shall have to take him. We cannot do anything else in those circumstances."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 28th February, 1968; Vol 759, c. 1501.]
He was speaking during the debate on the 1968 Act. I think that that statement did not have the force of law but was nevertheless a very clear undertaking. It is at least arguable that that statement was reinforced by the political asylum provisions of the convention relating to the status of refugees. I understand that the tenor of international law is that we were bound to take these people. Fundamentally it was a matter of humanity that led us to admit the Ugandan Asians.
I want to speak about how far humanity has been upheld by events—in other words how far, in tackling the resettlement problem, we have been able to behave in practice with as much humanity as we showed when we took the decision in principle. The purpose of this debate is to probe and so far as possible to try to establish how we have been able to look after this group of people and how they are settling in.
I am the first to acknowledge that the climate in which this operation has been carried out has not been easy. There is no point in denying that there has been considerable opposition in the country to the presence of the Ugandan refugees here or in denying that there are fears that go deeper than mere prejudice. I accept that a heavy concentration of immigrants is a serious problem. I accept that the housing shortage and unemployment are realities. I accept that

concern for a way of life is a perfectly legitimate concern. If we look at the picture as a whole of what we have seen during the last few weeks, we can see that the best things in our own way of life, the things we most want to uphold—humanity and good sense, for example—have found expression and that in the way we have faced up to and accepted this challenge we have been able to show our way of life at its best.
The paid officials and the volunteers who have been dealing with the problem have entered into the task with enormous enthusiasm and they have sustained that enthusiasm. It is comparatively easy to rally round and to help those in dire need for a short period. It has been remarkable how the volunteers have gone on working in the camps rather than reacting for a short time to strong emotional pressure. Although there may have been some faltering in the early stages while it was being decided what should be done, and there may have been tactical errors and mishaps, I do not feel any sense of shame at the way the problem has been tackled. I believe that we can be proud of the way things have gone.
It is high time that the Government gave the House, as it is bound to do this evening, a progress report on the way the resettlement has been carried out. Housing is and has been the crux of the problem, even more so than employment. We also recognise that the two are linked, and this may be the source of special difficulties. I do not condemn local authorities which were not able or did not feel able to provide council housing for the immigrants. It would be unreasonable to say that local authorities should necessarily take on the paramount responsibility for housing the immigrants.
I congratulate those which responded to the plea. I congratulate, for example, the Aylesbury Rural District Council which has provided six council houses for immigrants. I do not condemn the Aylesbury borough authority for saying that it did not feel able to do the same. As a Member of Parliament I know only too well the pressure that exists on the housing lists. We all know of hard cases of people who have been waiting for council houses for a long time and who have strong claims. I cannot say that a local authority which decides to look after its


own people rather than to house immigrants is wrong. To do otherwise could be counter-productive, because animosity and jealousy must be avoided at all costs.
I do not blame local authorities which have taken that line. To try to bludgeon them into taking Ugandan Asians could produce damaging hostility. Officially, I believe there was an attempt—perhaps "bludgeon" is too strong a word—to hurry the councils into action. There may have been some difficulty but I understand that since then the resettlement board has been acting in a "softly, softly" manner to see whether such help could be provided. That kind of discreet co-operation is the right approach to adopt.
If there is no over-riding necessity for local authorities to provide housing, the question must then be faced of how to provide the housing needed by the immigrants. Has enough been done to help immigrants to buy their own homes? I do not claim to have an intimate knowledge of the way of life of the Ugandan Asians but from what I have read and heard it seems that generally they would prefer to be home owners. That is their tradition and that is what they seek in this country.
I wonder whether something could be done to make mortgage smore easily available to immigrants or at least to find a way of topping up such loans and mortgages as may be available. Instead of insisting on council house provision, the right answer seems to be to see whether there are ways in which loans can be provided to enable immigrants to buy their own homes.
Of course there are some serious objections to that. It is difficult to set up a scheme to provide mortgages for people whose incomes, at least initially, may not be large enough. Even when two families are living in the same house, their combined incomes may still be below the required level. I also recognise that perhaps more serious difficulty of giving preference to an immigrant group over our own citizens, but I hope that it will be possible to override these two objections. In terms of the psychology of the situation, to reduce friction and to avoid excessive pressure on our council housing, some scheme of this kind would be a great advantage. There are many ways in which we help

other groups through special loans and mortgage schemes.
I also hope that we will be able to give greater help to businessmen or potential businessmen in the immigrant community. There has been a strong entrepreneurial tradition among those who have come here. Cannot something be done to make loans available to these immigrants so that they can start up their own businesses, so that we can get them, as it might be put, off the backs of the Welfare State? There has been a good deal of talk about this over the last few weeks but so far nothing seems to have been done. I hope we can hear that something is under way.
Can we somehow use the assets which the immigrants have had to leave behind in Uganda as backing for loans? I know that this again raises difficulties, but some of these people own substantial amounts of money in Uganda. Although there will be some element of a gamble in this, it should be possible to construct some such scheme.
There is a precedent—not an exact one, I admit—in the experience of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, which operated at the end of the 1950s, and which ran an ex gratia loan scheme which lent about £7½ million to people who were evicted from Egypt at the time of the Suez operation.
This would not be an entirely novel idea. There was an interesting letter from Mr. S. C. Kothari in the Financial Times early in October in which he set out the kind of process that would be necessary. He talked about three stages in the operation—first, evaluating the assets; secondly, liquidating them; and thirdly, repatriating them. Evaluation presents some difficulties, which can be overcome, but the second and third stages are of course unpredictable. But it is well worth trying them. Perhaps we could start on the basis of relatively small amounts, based not on the total amount of the possessions held in Uganda but perhaps on £1,000 or so. If these people are enabled to set up in business they will work their way into the community and will rapidly cease to be the kind of financial burden on society which they are bound otherwise to become.
We must now apply tougher pressure in Uganda to defend the interests of our


own passport-holders. I see why, when the Asians were still in Uganda, we had to adopt the kid glove approach, and I recognise that a substantial number of our own citizens are still in Uganda and that it is not easy to take a very tough line. We must be careful about it. Nevertheless, there will be greater pressure. We are all encouraged by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last week about the withdrawal of aid. That is entirely justified. May I, however, remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the Foreign Secretary's words on 23rd October, when he said:
If it is clear after 8th November that satisfactory arrangements for compensation are not being made, I will certainly take this up with the Uganda Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1972; Vol. 843, c. 164.]
I do not know whether he is taking this up, but it is something which should be pressed hard now and we should be prepared to do some arm-twisting and not just to make formal representations.
Essentially, I am trying to argue that we should try to approach this problem not in terms of charity or of a typical Welfare State operation, but in good, sensible, economic terms based on the argument that if we can help people to help themselves, we can get them absorbed into the community much more rapidly.
It is, however, reasonable to ask my hon. Friend to say something about the normal charitable activity which has been undertaken, the Sainsbury appeal. I suspect that it will not have great driving force and impact, but the House can reasonably ask what progress is being made.
It would also help if my hon. Friend the Minister could say something about the running down of the camps. It is right not to regard them as permanent or even a long-term feature of the scene. There may be a few handicapped people of one sort or another who will have to be permanently or semi-permanently treated as welfare cases, but for the majority it would be better if we were a bit breezy about getting them out and did not worry about the sort of susceptibilities expressed in the Observer on Sunday by a representative of International Voluntary Service. It is im-

portant that these people should not be allowed to become institutionalised. They are temperamentally very capable of working their way out into a strange community and any temptation to allow them to go on lingering in the camps will not be in their interests or in anybody else's.
I wonder whether we can give more help to those immigrants who have shown most enterprise. It is disappointing that one who goes straight into the community and not to the resettlement board should not be eligible for a house which is offered to the board. If one is to qualify for one of these houses one has to go first to a camp and I cannot see the virtue in that.
A variety of other questions could be asked—for example, about where immigrants have gone, about the way they work into the so-called "red" areas, how the education system is coping with the influx and about employment. I hope my hon. Friend can give some kind of picture of what is going on. The House should soon have a much fuller debate on this topic than is possible within the confines of a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I said at the outset that I believed we were absolutely right to act as we did and that if the situation arose again we should act in the same way, but I have grave doubts whether, if there were a similar influx in future, our response could be the same. We have to be realistic about this.
I hope that by wise diplomacy we can forestall any similar action starting again. But we cannot leave this to diplomacy alone. The risks and hazards are too great. It is time not to conceal the issue but to carry out a review of our obligations and the nature of our citizenship. That has to be done, but I hope strongly that the fact that it has to be done does not lead in any way to a grudging response to those who are here already.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on raising the subject. I agree with him that a debate on it was long overdue.
I also agree that all people in trouble should be helped in all possible ways,


whether they are Ugandan Asian immigrants or immigrants from any quarter of the globe. I should be the last to say that they should not be assisted. But—I emphasise the "but"—those born and bred here should be helped in exactly the same way. No preference should be shown.
Unfortunately, we have reached the stage where anyone who tries to deal with the real problems brought about by immigration is dubbed a racialist. My record in the trade union and Labour movement is such that I do not think I can be called a racialist. My constituency has a dock area. We have always had immigrants from the four quarters of the globe, because we have had the boats coming in. The crews have come off, and have married and been assimilated. We have never had any problems. Therefore, I cannot be accused of not knowing the difficulties.
It is not being racialist to try to look at the facts. I shall deal with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he had not used the expression "so-called" when he referred to red areas, because there are red areas. Perhaps it is not a good name, but I do not mind West Ham being called a red area, because politically it has always been a red area. That is the description the Government have given to what we might term the difficult areas.
I shall approach the question on an entirely different tack from the hon. Gentleman's. I accuse the Government of acting deliberately to exacerbate and create problems that they could have avoided. They knew, as we all did, that the Ugandan problem was likely to occur, though it is true that they did not know the exact date. They did nothing at all to prepare for the difficulties that they knew would occur. If they did not know about them, they should have known.
If the Government did not take action when they could and should have done, they are guilty of exacerbating the situation. It is true that they appealed to the Ugandan Asians not to go to the red areas. What a ludicrous and farcical approach! Here are poor, defenceless Asians coming here from Uganda, and the Government appeal to them not to go to where their friends and relatives are. Does not everyone know that the first

thing someone in trouble will do is to go to where his friends and relatives are?
I can appreciate the Government's appealing to the Ugandian Asians not to go to the red areas, but I should have thought they would have asked the people in the red areas to meet them to discuss their present problems and the problems that were likely to arise when, as was inevitable, these Asians moved into them. But the Government did not do that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to further problems arising. I agree with him. The Government know, I know, and everyone knows that a similar problem will arise at some time in the future with regard to the Kenyan Asians. On my way back from Kenya I stopped at Entebbe. This was when the exodus from Uganda was taking place, and I met some of the people leaving the country. Incidentally, some of the stories that I heard were different from those reported in the Press. I spoke to one middle-class Asian sitting next to me on the plane. I said that he had a charming wife, and I noticed that she was wearing a number of rings and jewellery—much more than my wife has. I remarked on the tragedy of the situation, and he replied, "We knew that this was coming. We took precautions and prepared for it. Some of us had numbered accounts in Swiss banks, and in that way we got our resources out of the country".
If, as seems likely, we are to be faced with a similar problem in respect of the Kenyan Asians, I ask the Government not to sit on their backsides now and say that it is not going to happen. It may not happen, but the Government should prepare for it and say that they are ready should it happen.
I should have liked the Government to say, "We know that between 20,000 and 25,000 Ugandan Asians will be coming here. We shall appeal to them not to go to the red areas, but in addition, we shall do something tangible". Not only could the Government have set up reception centres—incidentally, they were not set up, they were taken over—but they could have helped and assisted these red areas which have been faced with this problem for many years. They could have tried to deal with the problems that are there, and are growing day by day.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing, and it is a grievous problem, certainly in my constituency. During the war mine was the most bombed borough in London, and we still have not recovered from the damage that was done. Thousands of people were bombed out, not once but two or three times, yet the Government never offered any help. Some of my constituents have been waiting for 40 years for a house. They have brought up their families in one or two rooms in overcrowded slum conditions. Sons and daughters have had to grow to adolescence while eating and sleeping in the same room. When they have grown up they have married and moved to other areas because there are no facilities for them in my area. Older people who waited for years for houses of their own have now become old-age pensioners and have been told that they do not need that kind of accommodation.
My area has never had any help from the Government. Both Labour and Conservative Governments—and particularly the latter—have on occasion done all that they could to hamper and harm the people in my area. I shall give examples to prove that.
Housing has been cut back, there have been cuts in schooling and in grants. Earlier this evening we heard about the shortage of schools, and classes of 30 or 40 children, and there are more than 100 children who cannot get school places. I have taken up this matter with the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and I have got no satisfaction. I have even taken it up with the Prime Minister, but he does nothing. I wish he would "blow his top" about it.
By all means let us help the Ugandan Asians in every possible way; let us prepare to help the Kenyan Asians when they come, as they will; but let us also help the people who are already here and have been suffering hardships for years. I do not want them to get any more than the Ugandan Asians; I want them to get the same.
Only yesterday I telephoned the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Prime Minister's office about a lady who had

been turfed out of her dilapidated room at the back of a shop—she did not know her legal rights—and is now homeless. Although she has been able to store her furniture temporarily in a friend's home, she is unable to stay there herself, because there is no room. Neither the Government Departments that I telephoned nor the local welfare services have been able to find her a place. I could quote dozens of similar cases. There is not even room for this lady in a half-way settlement home. The half-way settlement homes in my constituency are similar to the Ugandan Asian resettlement camps, but there are certain differences.
If this lady were able to get into a half-way settlement home she would, rightly, have to pay an economic rent, clean her accommodation, pay for her food and cook her meals. The Ugandan Asians in resettlement camps get a home, furniture, linen, lighting and fuel. They get food, which is cooked for them, and contractors clean their apartments—paid for by the taxpayer. They do nothing to keep their apartments clean. They are also supplied with entertainment and television sets. Good luck to them; God bless them; may they get all this for as long as they want it. All I want is for my constituents to have the same. Motions have been tabled asking for old-age pensioners to have free television licences. If the Ugandan Asians can have television sets why cannot the old-age pensioners?
Because there are no school places available in the area where they live children are being bussed out to the areas where they came from originally, and the local authority pays the cost. But it is not the local authority which pays, it is the ratepayer. The local ratepayer pays for this in his rates, but he cannot get a house or get his children into school—or even the money to pay for it, because the Government have imposed a freeze.
The freeze is also hitting local authorities. My local authority wants a 12 per cent. increase on its rate income to maintain existing services. The Government have told it that it cannot increase its rate income. Yet here we have to provide a lot more accommodation and additional help and support.
I agree that we should give financial aid to these people. But why should a Mr. X, a Ugandan Asian, who has two


teenage sons capable of working—although he does not want them to work but to attend college—get £28·40 a week in social security benefits until next March, plus a £41 grant? Some children in my constituency cannot get school places, let alone attend college. When I investigate this matter I am told that the reason why Mr. X gets more than my old-age pensioners, unemployed workers or sick workers is that he pays a very high rent, because he has a luxury flat. My poor old devils would like a luxury flat, if there were any, and some assistance. Unfortunately, they get neither.
I was pleased to learn that his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has offered a flat to a Ugandan couple. God bless him and the couple. The Liberal Party believes in free immigration for anyone. Even its leader, who is not in the Chamber, has offered a flat, as have three other hon. Members. God bless them all. But there are thousands of people in this country who have been homeless for years. If the Archbishop of Canterbury has some flats available, I can give him a list of names of people from my constituency who would be pleased to take them. Why should there not be fair shares for all? If the leader of the Liberal Party has a spare flat, I can give him a copy of the list. I understand that the offers of the three other hon. Members have not yet been taken up. If they contacted me I could give them the names of people who have been waiting and suffering just as much as some Ugandan Asians.
A disabled ex-Serviceman living in Fulham, married to an ex-Servicewoman, was forcibly ejected from his small shop because of a development project. He had nowhere to live in Fulham, so my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) asked whether I would help the man, as he had friends in Newham. They came to my constituency and were put up temporarily. They could not remain there, however, and they went to Slough. About five weeks ago I wrote to the Departments concerned. Each Department said that it could do nothing about the problem.
We often speak of integration. I have suggested that we might start integration in these camps. Some of my old-age pensioners would like the opportunity to live in them. Why can accommodation not

be offered to them? It would show that there is no question of racialism or preferential treatment.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury rightly said how nice it would be to give the Ugandan Asians grants for mortgages to help them to buy houses. I agree. However, I ask him not to differentiate again. There are people in my constituency who would like to have help with mortgages. They, too, have difficulties in finding the necessary money. The man who has lost his business and is still homeless suggested that money should be given for businesses. By all means. But give money also to the people here who fought in two world wars and who have been waiting for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years for a decent home.
The Uganda Resettlement Board has been in existence since about August. I asked the Home Secretary yesterday how many discussions he had had with the board. He has not met the board yet. Some of his officials have, but he has not.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I want to put the matter straight. I do not know what words the hon. Gentleman thinks he is reading, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the chairman and members of the board in the first few weeks of the board's existence and he has met them at regular intervals since.

Mr. Lewis: The Home Secretary should look at the reply that I received to a Question yesterday or the day before, when he said that his officials had met them but he had not. The reply is in HANSARD.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury touched on the question of what is to happen about rehabilitating the Ugandan Asians. I read in the Daily Telegraph that Mr. Praful Patel, the leader of the Asian population in this country who is on the resettlement board, had travelled to a number of camps and had found them to be so comfortable that some of the people in them did not want to leave. Others who had left wanted to go back. I wrote to the Home Secretary asking whether that was true. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had not seen anything of this and I had to tell him what page in the Daily Telegraph—

Mr. Lane: Before the hon. Gentleman chases this hare further, will he accept my invitation to see one of the camps for himself, instead of relying on second-hand reporting of weeks ago?

Mr. Lewis: I am merely going by what Mr. Praful Patel was quoted in the Daily Telegraph and in The Times as having said, and which he has never denied. It is true that this was a week or so ago; I do not have the exact date. Perhaps the circumstances are different now. But he said it—I see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) nodding—and even more recently he said that some Ugandan Asians were going back to the camps. If that is not true, perhaps we could be told.
The position is being made worse and more difficult by the Government. Apparently we cannot increase rates to maintain the existing services, so goodness knows how we shall deal with all the extra demands that are made. However, Newham worked out a marvellous scheme for doing what the hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested, namely, giving young couples a chance of buying houses by paying something down before they were in need of the house, or when they were courting. The scheme was blessed by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment. It was going through, and then the Treasury stopped it. Therefore, the Government are aggravating the housing situation and causing more difficulties. We have asked for extra money to build schools and apparently it cannot be provided.
I hope that the Government will go out of their way to help the people I have in mind and will give them every assistance.
The Prime Minister sent me a letter dated 5th December—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not say that there is anything later. I quote what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I must ask you here to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, the reception over a very short period of time of a large number of refugees who arrive with no money, no jobs to go to"—
and he went on to make comparisons with people already here and homeless people. The right hon. Gentleman may think that "there is a fundamental difference", but I assure him that my constituent who is unemployed, who has

been turfed out because of a rapacious landlord, because he does not know his legal rights or because of the Government's rent legislation, and who has no money, does not see any fundamental difference. That is true. It is no good the Prime Minister saying that because one person has two sore fingers which have both turned septic, another person in the same position is not so bad because the sore fingers are on his left hand. I can assure him that that is not the case.
The Prime Minister suggests in his letter that we must help these people to maintain their community spirit. I agree. But that help should be given to my local people. Why should my local people have to go elsewhere because they cannot be re-housed in the area in which they want to be re-housed?
Incidentally, I said that I would quote the exact number of children who are being locked out. The Prime Minister says it is 129. I said that I thought it was over 100. There are 129 children of secondary school age who are being locked out or sent out.
I can only say what I have read in the Press, but it has not been denied that a multi-millionaire, a Mr. Mdvanhi, who is alleged to have £180 million, and to be a friend of General Amin, originally went to Bombay. He said that he had a Ugandan passport. But he eventually came here as he discovered that he had a British passport. I do not know whether that is the case, but I hope that we are not showing a preference to that man because he happens to be a millionaire. If we are to be fair to all, let that principle be applied strictly. I understand that another one was let in recently because he is supposed to be stateless.
I understand that £1 million a month is being spent on resettlement. How much of that money is going to local authorities in the red areas to overcome their problems? I should like an assurance that none of the inhabitants or the ratepayers of these areas are having to foot any of the bill.
I have not seen the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs inviting some of these people to his landed estates in Scotland. I believe that he has acres and acres of land. He could probably put some up. I have not seen


the Prime Minister "blowing his top" to see that they go to Bexley. They are not going to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). After all, Finchley has not got a housing or schooling problem. Why should the Prime Minister not say, "We can help these people to leave Leicester and Newham and go to Finchley, and to the Liberal Party's constituencies"? That would be helpful. There are no housing and schooling problems in those areas. They would not interfere with the local people, and it would be helpful to see that they are spread around.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the £1 million a month he is referring to is merely the cost of the reception camps for the Ugandan Asians, and does not include the massive cost to the Government and local authorities of providing all the other services needed for these refugees?

Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I obviously under-estimated. But I am concerned not so much with the amount of money as with the principle. I do not see why my constituents, already poor and hard-pressed, should have to meet additional expenditure which they can ill afford.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned Lord Sainsbury. Being generous, I am calling on the Deity to bless these people, and I ask Him to bless Lord Sainsbury as well. But Lord Sainsbury never set up a fund, to which the Government could contribute £50,000, for my constituents.
We had in my constituency a disaster at Ronan Point. There was loss of life when the building collapsed. Did the Government give us £50,000 then? Not on your—well, there is an unparliamentary expression that might be used. Of course they did not. When we have a disaster we have to fight and scramble. Not only does no one come forward with help but every obstacle is placed in the way of the local authorities in coping with it.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Which Government was it?

Mr. Lewis: Both Governments.

Mr. Roberts: The Labour Government.

Mr. Lewis: Initially it was the Labour Government, through, of course, the Treasury, as always.

Mr. Roberts: It was your Government.

Mr. Lewis: I do not trust this Government now. Is it not this Government who are paying out the £1 million a month? Is it not this Government who are preventing my constituents from having more houses? Is it not this Government who have done all the things I have mentioned? I said earlier that both Governments had made things difficult; I mentioned that some of my constituents had been waiting for 30 or 40 years for decent housing. I am not saying that either Government are blameless. But I am dealing with the situation as it is, and I am asking this Government to do something to help areas like my constituency.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. David Knox: I assure the House that I shall not take as long as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has taken—as usual. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for raising this subject. Like him, I regret that it has not been debated in the Chamber before now. Somehow in the last few months we have got our priorities wrong.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend's support of the Government in admitting the Ugandan Asians to this country. It was a clear-cut matter—on moral grounds because a previous British Government had given their word; on legal grounds because, as passport holders, they had the right to come here, and, above all, on humanitarian grounds because that is in the British humanitarian tradition. It is all very well for some people to talk about aliens moving into our society; it would have been alien to British humanitarian traditions not to admit these people.

Mr. Winterton: A previous Government passed an Act to regulate the intake of immigrants. Does not my hon. Friend feel that the present Government should perhaps have brought pressure to bear upon countries like India and Pakistan much more strongly from the beginning


to accept back a larger number of their own people?

Mr. Knox: The Uganda Independence Act 1962, and the Kenya Independence Act 1963 gave these people the right to a British passport and the right to come to this country. So the ultimate obligation rested on the British Government to accept them, given the circumstances which had arisen, which were precisely the circumstances which had been foreseen and which led Governments in the early 1960s to include such provisions.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that the climate in which the Ugandan Asians are being rehabilitated in Britain is not very good. That is a criticism against all of us in public life. For about a month—August—we allowed one newspaper in particular, the Daily Express, and certain people in our society to lead public opinion in a way not in our finest tradition. It was not until September that those of us who took a rather more liberal and moderate view started to speak, and it has struck me that the British people have responded well.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North spoke of hon. Members to whose constituencies Ugandan Asians were not moving. I hope that he will not criticise me on that score, because at an early stage I suggested that councils in my constituency should make housing available to Ugandan Asians.
I am more than proud to say that the Leek Urban District Council and the Biddulph Urban District Council in my constituency have made houses available to Ugandan Asians. I note that the Labour-controlled Kidsgrove Urban District Council has not made the same gesture.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We have never been free of a housing urgent waiting list of about 7,000 or 8,000. It is physically impossible to offer housing.

Mr. Knox: I was commenting on the hon. Member's statement that certain hon. Members had not encouraged their councils to take Ugandan Asians. I was merely showing that some of us had given a lead.
The first families have started to arrive in my constituency. They are settling in quickly. I have visited them, as have

some local council dignitaries. What is moving all of us is the large amount of good will among people in North Staffordshire who have welcomed the Asians into their new homes. Furnishings have been readily provided by the local community, and clothing has also been provided, for the families who have come into my constituency were not dripping with diamonds and jewellery, as was the family that the hon. Member for West Ham, North, mentioned.
These people had been deprived of their material goods and have come to this country with nothing. Their neighbours in Biddulph have gone out of their way to welcome and help them. The Asians are more than happy to be in North Staffordshire.
The head of the household of one of the families and the son in another have started work already, in one instance within one week of arriving. These families are the sort of people who want to stand on their own feet and be independent. They are not sponging on society. They are not getting benefits that people already in this country do not get. They will stand on their own feet; that is why I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury about the provision of funds to help certain of the Ugandan Asians to start businesses of their own.
Many of them have great commercial enterprise. They added substantially to the economy of Uganda, and Uganda will suffer greatly from their departure. I am sure that they can contribute to our economy. But, having lost a substantial amount of their material goods, they need some help, at least temporarily. I hope that some means may be found to provide small amounts of capital to enable them to start businesses here. I am sure that the money would be repaid by them if other means of repayment could not be found.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North spoke at great length about the problems of the red areas, suggesting that those problems were caused entirely by immigrants. I accept that problems are caused by a young population, immigrant or otherwise, but I ask the hon. Gentleman and others who feel like him to remember that many advantages accrue when a young population group moves into an area.
We have to remember the advantages that the indigenous population enjoys from having immigrants—hospital doctors and nurses, and the many who work on public transport. These people are not "scrounging" on our society; they are contributing to it and to the national income and the national wealth, and we all benefit. I ask hon. Members to talk less about the burdens of immigration and more about the advantages that accrue to our society.
The hon. Member quoted a letter from the Prime Minister in which my right hon. Friend seemed to make the legitimate observation that there was a difference between those now arriving from Uganda and those who have lived here for a long time. There is a difference initially, and for a short period, precisely because those now arriving and recently arrived are refugees, and as most of them have arrived with no material wealth it is right that additional help should be given to them in the first place. But as soon as they move out of camps they will take their chances with other families. The family in my constituency, where the head of the household started work last week, is not now enjoying any advantages from the Welfare State.
In his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned £1 million a month, and what he called the other substantial costs involved. As soon as these people find employment they will be taking their luck with everyone else, and will not be imposing an excessive burden on the social services, or any other service, other than what is enjoyed by the indigenous population. In the past few weeks I have been proud of the warm welcome given by my constituents to the families who have moved into North Staffordshire. I have been proud, too, to support a Government who have kept their word about the Ugandan Asians.
In one respect I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. If a problem should arise in connection with the Kenyan Asians, by all means let us negotiate and use diplomatic influence with friends in other countries to persuade them to take some of those people.

Mr. Fred Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman now extend the com-
passion and kindliness that he has shown in his speech to the people of Wales?

Mr. Knox: I did not think that I was talking about the people of Wales.
Although Ministers may be doing all they can, through diplomacy and in other ways, to make sure that there is no problem about Kenyan Asians, or to ensure that, if there is, they are able to go to other parts of the world, in the last analysis I hope that if there is nowhere else for them to go we shall treat them exactly as we have treated the Ugandan Asians. We gave our word to them; I, for one, wish us to keep that word.

11.40 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I, too, shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Last August, when we had our last debate of this kind on the Appropriation Bill, I had the privilege of sitting in the Chair during a good part of the night, and I understand the problems that you face.
I represent part of a red area, namely, the Wembley, South division of the borough of Brent. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall, I had a deluge of letters of protest at the beginning of this influx of Ugandan Asians, or even before they arrived. In the event, a large number have come to the borough of Brent.
In support of my constituents I asked my hon. Friend whether the Uganda Resettlement Board would do its utmost to dissuade the Ugandan Asians from going to areas like Brent, where we already have more than enough immigrants. I do not blame the Government for failing to do that. They had no power, I gather, unless they were to reassume the wartime powers of direction of labour, and I imagine that there would have been great objection from both sides of the House if they had done that in order to try to regulate where these unfortunate people should go.
According to the figures given to the borough council by the resettlement board we have had about 2,000 Ugandan Asians in the borough of Brent. But to judge from the number of children who have arrived, it is estimated that the number of adults must be about twice 2,000, unless there is an unusually high number of children per family among these people.
No council houses have been offered by the borough of Brent to these Ugandan Asians. That could not possibly have been done.

Mr. Fred Evans: Why?

Sir R. Russell: Because there are already 7,000 of our own people on the waiting list in the borough, and there would have been the most fearful resentment if any council houses had been offered. But what the borough council did do—it is a Socialist-controlled council—was to offer them 100 per cent. mortgages, making the same offer available to our own people, which I think was only fair. It would have been quite impossible for the local authority to allocate any council houses in the situation we have been caught up in for a long time in the borough as a whole. I agree also with the idea of loans for setting up business which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) suggested; but, here again, they must be offered on the same basis for our own people; otherwise, enormous resentment will be caused.
I am grateful to the Government for making a new school available to give about 400 or 500 places next year. It will probably not take all the Ugandan Asians, but it will cream off some of our own people from other schools, and make other places available for the Ugandan Asians.
I am glad that the Wembley employment exchange has managed to place 85 of the Ugandan Asians in employment. We are lucky in the Wembley employment exchange area in having a rate of unemployment of only ½ per cent. at present. It must, I think, be the lowest in the country, and we are very fortunate.

Mr. Fred Evans: The hon. Gentleman should come to Wales.

Sir R. Russell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury for raising this topic. It is important that it be discussed, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what hope he can give of our being able to spread the Ugandan Asians more throughout the country instead of having them concentrated so much in any one area.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I came back tonight to take part in this

debate. I apologise to the House for the fact that I missed the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I have taken the opportunity, whilst sitting next to him, of finding out roughly what he said. I hope the House will forgive me for not being present for the whole debate.
Like many hon. Members, I have received a very large number of letters on the subject of the Ugandan Asians. I have not found them easy to answer. I find myself slightly less committed than my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox whose speech I listened to and admired tremendously. I am much more committed than is the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Government did the right thing than is the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I wholeheartedly back Her Majesty's Government on this matter. What was done was right and absolutely necessary. If it had not been done it would have had the most diabolical consequences both for the people concerned and for the overseas reputation of our country.
When one receives letters from constituents it is tempting to say "I am aware of your problems, I sympathise with you." It is much harder to try to put the other point of view. People write saying, "Our old-age pensioners are not being properly looked after; look at all the money spent on the Asians." I try to reply that what is spent on the Asians is the equivalent of a one-off shot of £1·50 per pensioner.
It is extraordinary that our pensioners should be the most generous, compassionate, and willing to help needy people. When one puts to the pensioners the fact that by forgoing £1·50 they might be contributing towards saving the lives of 20,000 people it is not difficult to persuade them that it was a sacrifice—if money had been available to them—well worth making.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree. But if the hon. Gentleman is right—and I accept that he is right—instead of £1·50 from the old-age pensioner would it not be better, if this is a good principle, to put 22½p on the surtax or income tax, so that the very wealthy could pay much more, which would be more acceptable.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not say that the £12 million would necessarily have been available to the pensioners. I said, "if the money had been available to them". This is another argument.
In our treatment of the old-age pensioners, although we have not been as generous as had been hoped we have a fairly reasonable record. Even taking the most simplistic argument one could find—and the arguments of the hon. Gentleman were very simplistic—there is an argument to be put forward which is acceptable to the people. I do not think that people react simplistically; or, if they do, it is not in our interests to pander to that attitude. Occasionally we might try to mention the other point of view and suggest that these people constitute a special case.
It is not good enough to say, in regard to a person in one's constituency whose business has become bankrupt and who needs help, "Why do you not give the money to him instead of the man who was deprived of all his assets at very short notice, expelled from the country in which he has always lived and from which he has been shunted abroad?" It is not correct to say, "Here is a man in the same position as the man in my constituency whose business failed."
I never heard those arguments when Hungarians wished to escape from a Communist régime during the uprising. Then it was most noble and honourable to invite them into one's country and look after them. I never heard that argument used in connection with the Jewish refugees from Europe in the 1930s. It was not necessary to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There were not 25,000 or 30,000 Hungarian refugees. They did not all go into the red areas. By all means have them here, but do not send them into the red areas—or, better still, do something to encourage them to go to other areas.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member is now watering down the impact of most of his earlier remarks. I am quite sure that most of us who listened to his arguments did not get the impression that he is now giving, that he welcomes the Ugandan Asians and that it is simply the areas to which they are going, that he objects. If he reads his remarks tomorrow

I do not think that he will draw that conclusion from what he said. If he had said that originally, and had been saying that during the last few weeks, many of us would have been a little happier about his attitude to the Ugandan Asians. That was not, however, the impression that I or anyone else here tonight could have been tempted to draw from his earlier remarks.
These people do not want to come here and—let us face it—we were not particularly happy about their coming. They were in danger. Their lives were in peril. The only mistake they made was to opt to hold a British passport. That put their lives in danger. I accept that they were reluctant to come, and I, for one, gave them a reluctant welcome, but I still joined that little gang of Members to whom the hon. Member referred in a rather sneering way, who wrote to the resettlement board and invited families to come and stay in their homes for a short time.
The hon. Member has exacerbated the problem that he claims to care about. I do not believe that these people are the parasites, spivs and hangers-on that the hon. Member gave the impression they were.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not say that.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member did not say it, but throughout his speech ran the implication that these people would be a drain on our nation, and that they had opted to be that drain. The basic reason for their expulsion from Uganda was that they were too successful. They controlled too much of Uganda's economy. The implication of what the hon. Member said rang loud and clear. It was that these people came here to be parasites. It is no good the hon. Member's shaking his head. By making that implication the hon. Member will create the ill will, misunderstanding, and difficulties about which he is hypocrite enough to pretend he cares.
Sooner or later the hon. Member should start to read his speeches, and to weigh them not just against his narrow, sectional constituency interests but against what is good for human beings who are deprived of their possessions, their livelihood and their homes and are forced to live in a land that they do not want to come to. Sooner or later we, as Members of Parliament, will have to stop thinking about


what sounds well and reads well in our constituencies and start to think about what is right and honourable, and what we as a country should be doing to help those in real need.
I would not have spoken tonight, but I felt that the hon. Member and what he stands for must be confronted. It is not good enough to pretend to be a friend of the poor and the needy and to turn one's back on the people who are truly poor to the extent that they have nothing, and are needy to the extent that they have been deprived of their livelihoods, their prospects and all their possessions.
Sooner or later the hon. Member and people like him must begin to consider just what they stand for, and must realise that it is not good enough to put narrow, sectional interests before the interests of people who have nobody to turn to and no prospects except for us to do what we said we would do 10 years ago.
The Ugandan Asians have a great contribution to make: their background suggests that they are far from being a drag on our society. The report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration which shows that the Asians have revealed themselves as the most law-abiding and hardworking of our immigrant populations gives reassurance that these people will not be a problem.
I share my hon. Friend's concern whether the country can absorb many more, although if a similar emergency situation should arise, I hope and believe that the Government will do the right thing. I hope that they will work hard through all the usual channels, and some which are not so usual, to ensure that this eventuality does not occur, but the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and others like him should realise that there comes a time to do what one believes is right, even though it is not necessarily popular at the moment.
The popularity which we as a Parliament might have lost by doing what we did would have been nothing compared with the unpopularity that we would have earned had people started to die in concentration camps simply because they had a British passport. There comes a time when one must stop taking the short-term view, the constituency view,

the view that will collect a few cheap votes, and start thinking about what is right and proper. By any reasonable application of the tests that I have mentioned, the hon. Member for West Ham, North has failed tonight.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: I am very touched by the compassion shown by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson)—

Mr. Lane: In a very good speech.

Mr. Evans: Yes, and one to which I fully subscribe. The hon. Member's argument was that we have too many people in this country, that we have only limited space and resources, and that we need a population policy before we reach the limit. I only wish that his compassion had been extended in the past. I wish that the party opposite would decide not to preach to the Asians or anyone else but to have a population policy—no question of a colour bar, or anything else.
Our modern technology will allow us to produce what we want with a population of 35 million—and I do not care whether the people are Ugandans, Welsh, Irish, black or ginger. We want no colour bars, but compassion is nothing without a passion for survival.
12 midnight.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I shall not follow closely the argument about the population policy presented by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), but I am concerned at some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson). He said that he was reluctant—I think he implied that, whether or not that was exactly the word—to welcome Ugandan Asians because of the problems involved. I hope that I do not misinterpret him.
I gave a wholehearted welcome to the Ugandan Asians, because I felt we had a responsibility and that, at that time, we alone could fulfil it.

Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that I said I was reluctant to welcome them, but that was against the background that I accepted that they were equally reluctant to come, and that the combination of circumstances was one which neither party welcomed.

Mr. Roberts: I would point out that there was no pressure on me—politically, anyway—to extend that welcome. It was done because I felt it my duty so to do but I disagree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) when he says that in similar circumstances, in a similar situation for other countries, he would say in this House and to the people that he could say to other Asian groups, and others who hold passports which apparently give them an opportunity to come to this country, "All can come in", because I will not be prepared to tell the Government that I am ready to support such an entry in future.
The time has come when we should say, and say it clearly, that responsibility is not ours alone but extends internationally and to the whole Commonwealth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West said that he would welcome—and had extended a welcome in his own home—Ugandan Asians. That is something which I am in a position to do, but many people in this country do not live in the sort of house in which I live. They do not have the opportunity to do exactly that. The Archbishop of Canterbury and I have that in common. He has extended the welcome which I could do and have not done.

Mr. Winterton: Is it a palace?

Mr. Roberts: No, not a palace.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Member tell me how many houses Cardiff Corporation has awarded to Ugandan Asians?

Mr. Roberts: I should like to do that. I think it is six.

Mr. Evans: A great round zero.

Mr. Roberts: Oh, no. The hon. Member is close enough. He lives just over the hill, not far away. He is completely wrong, because we have made an allocation. It may not be generous enough by the standards of what the Caerphilly Urban District Council offered. I shall check the figures and let the hon. Gentleman know in due course. But the truth is that the city council made an offer—not generous enough, but no doubt generous by comparison with the

standards of other local authorities in Wales, and no doubt by that comparison generous by all standards.

Mr. Evans: Not all standards. If the hon. Gentleman is to quote authority against authority I hope that he will quote Cardiff against other local authorities.

Mr. Roberts: I did not quite get the gist of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I assure him that we have allocated houses and we have extended a welcome.
A welcome can be extended, as was done by my city authority, and no doubt by Caerphilly UDC, but that welcome is a reality only when it is backed by the people in that authority's area—the ordinary people who live in the council houses, who are on the waiting lists for council houses and are residents there.
The vast majority of our people will approve the welcome that we have given in Cardiff, and Caerphilly, and as a nation, to the Ugandan Asians, because nothing else could be done—but they sound a warning to the Government to negotiate now and ensure that a situation does not occur again in which Britain alone has to accept responsibility.
I have welcomed the Ugandan Asians in their exodus. I have said, "Yes, come to the United Kingdom." My welcome—not a reluctant one—has been on record from the beginning. But when it is said that we must extend to them privileges that we do not extend to our own people, it must be recognised that politics—political and democratic life—is the art of the possible. We must, of course, tell our people that they must welcome the person who was a successful businessman in Uganda, playing a prominent part in the organisation of Ugandan business, but we cannot go further and say that we must give him the chance to extend his business opportunities in the United Kingdom, by way of assistance—whether by loan or grant—that we do not offer to the people who reside in this country. That is something that many hon. Members and many Christian people would like to say that we should do, but it is something that our people will not tolerate. If we are foolish enough to do it we shall create a lack of harmony, and the welcome that


has been given will be destroyed. I sincerely hope that the Government will not err in that direction.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What a tragedy it is that this debate did not take place in August. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) when he expressed regret that the Government did not see fit to have this matter discussed by the House of Commons when the difficult situation arose in Uganda.
I believe that my colleagues on this side of the House have been unfair and unjust to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) who, I believe, in the debate tonight has reflected very accurately the deep feelings of the great majority of the people of this country. If a Member of the House of Commons cannot come to this Chamber to reflect the genuine feelings of so many people, the future of Parliament is indeed in jeopardy.
I did not agree with the Government in the decision to accept the Ugandan Asians. As I indicated earlier in the debate in an intervention, I believe that the Government should have taken far stronger action right from the start with President Amin. They should have negotiated much more forcefully with the Governments of India and Pakistan in an endeavour to have many more of the Ugandan Asians accepted back into both India and Pakistan. But these people are here, I accept that they are here, and they should be treated on an equal basis with the indigenous population, whether in housing, education, welfare or health.
Where the hon. Member for West Ham, North is right—and I believe that he made the point forcefully—is that despite the advice given to them by the Uganda Resettlement Board many of the Ugandan refugees have gone to the "red" areas where there is already a high concentration of immigrants, and many problems result from this in education and welfare. In education in particular, it is necessary to provide extra teachers and extra staff in order to teach these refugees English.
I shall not criticise the way that they live. In fact, I believe that Asian families could often teach many of our indigenous

families a thing or two about family responsibility. This is an important aspect that is perhaps overlooked when we are talking about the problems that will result from the Ugandan Asians having come here.
I wish here and now to criticise the Government for their lamentable public relations over their handling of the Ugandan Asian situation. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, there should have been a debate on the subject in the House. This may well have taken a great deal of the heat out of the difficulty and reduced the problems and the emotions that were generated amongst people in this country who felt that these new arrivals were being given preferential treatment, particularly in housing, where the Government urged local authorities, many of which already had a difficult housing situation, to put these Ugandan Asians ahead of people who had been on the waiting lists for perhaps five, 10 or even 15 years.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) made an interesting point when he said that this country is one of the most heavily populated in the world. Indeed it is, and unfortunately immigrants produce the largest families; so that the more immigrants we allow to come here, the more acute becomes the population problem. The Government's duty is to review their immigration policy. It is possible that as many as 200,000 or 250,000 British passport-holders in East Africa could come here if Governments in that continent followed the bestial racial policies of President Amin. Already there are flickers of fire in Kenya. I hope that the flickers do not burst into flames.
The Government—whether a Labour or Conservative Government—in the interests of the indigenous population and the immigrants already here, should impose a total ban on further immigration from all sources into this country by heads of families for five years. That would allow the indigenous population to get used to coexisting with the many other, perhaps alien, communities that have come here in recent years. It would allow us to catch up with the backlog in education, hospital and welfare facilities. Only if this is done will there be satisfactory coexistence between immigrants and the indigenous population.

Mr. Knox: What would my hon. Friend do if people holding British passports were expelled from Kenya? Would he leave them shutting round the world?

Mr. Winterton: No, I would not, but—bearing in mind the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968—neither would I make a decision to accept them here irresponsibly without first trying to disperse them and approaching other nations which do not have such an acute problem as we have, to see whether they will accept them.

Mr. Knox: My hon. Friend said that he would allow none at all into the country. On that basis I pose my question again. What would he do if Kenya expelled British passport-holders? If they are not to be allowed here, would he leave them shuttling round the world?

Mr. Winterton: If this country had a firmer immigration policy, General Amin would not have adopted the policy he has. He adopted that policy because he knew that he would get away with it.

Mr. Fred Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat what Balfour did in 1917 with the Arabs and Israelis?

Mr. Winterton: I was not even a twinkle in my father's eye in 1917. I do not wish to live in the past but rather to look forward to the future and to ensure that the problems that have arisen from our accepting these Ugandan refugees will not be repeated. The Ugandan Asians are here, we have accepted them and we must treat them equally in every respect with our other citizens, but for heaven's sake let the Government anticipate what might happen in the future and get on the Statute Book an immigration policy that is in the interests of the people of this country.

12.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I welcome the debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for the way in which he started it and to other hon. Members for the way in which they have carried it on. It is time for the House of Commons to take stock of the position.
I will deal as briefly as I can with the points that have been raised. I am

grateful for the general support that the Government have had from those who have spoken for the decision they took and the action which has followed in coping with this emergency. It is a good time, too, to be taking stock, because the first phase, the reception phase, is now complete and we embark upon the second phase of moving the remaining refugees out of the centres into the community.
I pay tribute first, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, to what has already been achieved in dealing with this emergency—I am glad that my hon. Friend said this too—with humanity. I pay tribute to the Uganda Resettlement Board. In the time that has been available, it has done a remarkable job of organisation and improvisation. Similarly I pay tribute to the Government Departments and staffs involved, particularly the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security. Their officials have often worked fantastic hours in unfamiliar situations. I hope that it will not be thought out of place if I pay particular tribute to members of the immigration staff of the Home Office, who from the beginning have been very much in the front line of this matter, again in situations often unfamiliar to them.
Similarly, we ought to acknowledge the help given by local authorities. I am thinking of not only the local authorities all over the country—not only in the "red" areas—which are now dealing with the permanent settlement of the refugees, but also the fewer local authorities which have had the reception centres, and still have them in most cases, in their areas and have done superb work, particularly on health and education.
Tribute is due also to a very large number of private citizens, first those who, from the start, wrote offering accommodation and help to refugees, and the thousands of others who have worked with voluntary organisations at the centres and in places where the refugees came to settle. I am thinking particularly of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, Community Service Volunteers—of whom about 70 are still working, full-time in the centres, all hours of the


day and night—and the Citizens Advice Bureaux. I am thinking, too, of representatives of the Asian community in this country who have helped very much indeed.
Altogether, the response of the people of this country in this unexpected emergency has on the whole been very praiseworthy, though I am conscious also—this point emerged in the debate—of the indignation felt by a number of our fellow citizens and the great concern still felt about the danger of any repetition of this episode. I would only say that that is very much in the Government's mind.
Last, but not least, I pay tribute to the Asian refugees themselves. They are appreciative of what we have done, uncomplaining and anxious simply to get out of the centres as quickly as they can and to get down to work in the community.
To those of us who have seen this operation at first hand, it has been a very moving and human situation.
I now give the House a brief situation report on where the operation now stands. Up to the beginning of this week, about 25,500 refugees had arrived in this country as a result of President Amin's decree. The resettlement board had opened a total of 16 centres. The total number of refugees who have been in the centres at one time or another, a number of whom have now moved on, amounts to 21,000. Of that number, those who have moved on into the community from the centres total 10,800.
Several hon. Members have said that housing is the crux of this matter. We have been offered over 1,900 houses or flats by local authorities, and in that sector 460 refugee families, amounting to more than 2,000 people, have already been placed in homes by the board. Side by side with that we have had about 2,000 offers of private accommodation, and in that sector already 500 refugee families, more than 1,500 people in total, have been placed by the board. That adds up to between 3,600 and 3,700 people already found homes by the board and is in addition to those who have found homes temporarily or permanently through their own efforts.
I am grateful that more than 1,300 employers have offered help in finding

jobs for the refugees. About 1,700 refugees—breadwinners, not families—have been placed in jobs through the Department of Employment.
Those are the bare figures of the stage which we have reached. During recent weeks an average of 1,000 refugees have been leaving the board's centres every week either under the special arrangements made by the board of the sort I have described or under their own steam. One of the board's centres, Piddlehinton, was closed in the middle of November. Another at Plasterdown will close within a week or so. Further closures will follow as the numbers under the board's care decrease, and that will do more than anything else to lower the cost of the operation.
Focussing on the main problem with which we are concerned, that leaves at the beginning of this week about 10,300 refugees still in the board's centres. Of those, about 1,000 are interested in the possibility of moving on to third countries—I mention particularly Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Fiji, Germany and Sweden and several countries in Latin America—and interviewing is going on into these possibilities. Some of the refugees will be moving on from this country to several of those countries over the next two or three months.
But that will still leave the bulk of the 10,300 to be found permanent homes in this country. Over 6,000 of them could be found housing in the local authority accommodation which is still on offer. There is in addition private accommodation, but that it not always very easy because in many cases it is offered only temporarily. I shall come later to the question of more long-term housing.
Looking at the resettlement problem which remains, the next stage will be more difficult than the phase which I referred to earlier of the initial reception in this country. We now have the stage of permanent resettlement for the remaining considerable number; but it is a manageable problem. The board is doing its utmost, and the Government are giving it every support, to maintain the momentum of the movement of the refugees out of the centres, although it may not be possible to keep it up much longer at the rate of 1,000 a week.
One or two of my hon. Friends have been right to point to the dangers of


institutionalisation. But we must watch the risk of perhaps over-hasty settlement in the community. We want to get the people not merely out of the centres but settled well and satisfactorily in the community with the sort of good will described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox). But a number of problems concerning the harder cases—large families, disabled people and old people—have still to be solved, and we shall have to take special care and make special efforts to get these people settled in the community.

Mr. Michael Roberts: My hon. Friend has said that it is much more difficult to establish permanent resettlement. Does he recognise that if a similar problem were to occur in respect of the Asian community of Kenya and other areas, it would cause almost insuperable difficulties for us?

Mr. Lane: I agree, incidentally, with what my hon. Friend said earlier about problems of this kind being basically international, but on the point on which he has interrupted me I did not make myself clear. I was trying to say that the phase on which we are now concentrating—resettling the remaining refugees in the community—will be a more difficult phase than the initial phase of receiving them and caring for them in this country.
To tackle the problem of permanent resettlement, the board has resettlement teams working in every centre. The teams are interviewing the refugees and trying to match their needs to homes and jobs all around the country. There are 100 civil servants working in the centres alone. The board is making a detailed record of those who remain in the centres, including their family circumstances and their various skills and experience, so that we can complete the operation as effectively as possible. The operation will be measured partly by our success in dispersing the refugees.
Dispersal is difficult. The House recognises the problems. Much has been said about it during the debate. I only add that, having absorbed the initial wave of those who in many cases had friends or relations already here, who would naturally be in areas of considerable immigration concentration already, we are now dealing mainly with those who have no connections already in this country.

These people are awaiting our advice in the centres. I hope that we can effectively persuade them to go, as far as possible, to other parts of the country. I do not want to raise the hopes of the House, but I think that it may be a little easier from now onwards.
I will now deal with some matters which hon. Members have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked whether we had done enough to help home purchase. As we know, these people have a considerable tradition of home ownership. We always envisaged that at least at first we would have to rely on rented accommodation. That has been the case so far, principally with local authorities. In addition to local authority accommodation, there may be some scope for at least semi-permanent housing in some surplus Government accommodation, but not on a large scale.
We hope later—I agree with what hon. Members have said—that there will be more possibilities for those refugees who wish to take out mortgages to own their own homes. In some local authority areas this is already being tried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury raised the possibility of a special loan fund from public funds over and above existing arrangements. I can only say that we must look at the matter very cautiously. We must try to avoid the belief gaining ground that in this respect refugees will be given preferential treatment. That has been well illustrated by what has been said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not want to say any more than that about loans for housing.

Mr. Winterton: I believe that a valid point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), who indicated that the Brent Borough Council was offering 100 per cent. mortgages to Ugandan Asians but, at the same time, was not discriminating against its own citizens. Since June 1970 the Government have gone a long way to encourage local authorities to offer 100 per cent. mortgages not only to those who have become refugees in this country but to our own people. If this were done, I am sure that the heat of indignation would disappear from this difficult situation.

Mr. Lane: I acknowledge what has been done in Brent. I hope that that sort of thing will be increasingly possible in other areas. But there are difficulties, and it is no good blinking at them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree that the situation is difficult. I have a large immigrant population in my constituency, like the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), who probably has the same problems. A number of houses are becoming decontrolled and the owners are selling them. Many tenants have lived there 20, 30 or 40 years, and are now elderly. They cannot get mortgages because of their age, and could not afford to pay them anyway. If immigrants come in, and can and do buy these houses as the old people are moving out, it causes problems. Will the hon. Gentleman try to deal with that as well? It creates difficulties.

Mr. Lane: I do not want to be drawn into a debate on immigration as a whole, or on housing as a whole, but I acknowledge the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
I was telling the House about the stage reached by the Uganda Asian Relief Trust. It is intended not as a help for housing or for jobs but to meet certain limited needs of the refugees as they set up new homes—for example, furniture, household equipment, initial supplies of fuel, and, in some cases, craftsmen's tools.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the chairman, and his fellow trustees for launching the appeal and administering the funds. The Government made an initial contribution of £50,000. Already, something like £25,000 has been raised, mainly from the public, including donations by the Asian community here. That is only a start, and we hope that further contributions will be forthcoming. I am glad to tell the House—just this week the trust has been able to make its first allocations up to a total of £50,000 to local authorities where 20 or more refugees are known to have settled, to help meet the basic needs I have mentioned of the families concerned. Varying figures of allocation out of the total of £50,000 have gone to Brent, Newham, Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cardiff, Enfield and, I hope, Cheshire. I emphasise that this is

for minor purposes and is separate from the mainstream of the special Exchequer help to local authorities.
I turn now to the provision of jobs. I have to acknowledge the great help that many employers have already given, but I want to make a fresh appeal to employers to see whether there are not further jobs they might be able to offer to refugees, many of whom have skills which are in demand in certain areas. At the same time, to help in the matching process, the resettlement board is compiling an up-to-date record of the skills and qualification of those still in the centres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned the entrepreneurial traditions of many of the refugees and asked whether more might be done to set some up with small loans to start them off in their own businesses. This is being actively considered by the board, in consultation with the banks and the Government. I stress that this is basically a commercial matter for the banks, but we are pursuing it as vigorously as we can in the hope that something may soon be got going. I cannot say anything more definite than that now. But I take the point very seriously—and that leads me to deal with a point about assets in Uganda, which are obviously directly linked with possible loans in this country.
Asians subject to the expulsion order of 9th August have not been deprived of title to the properties they own there, provided they registered them as required under Decrees 27 and 29 of October, 1972.
Abandoned or non-registered property vests in a government board in Uganda. Businesses have been advertised for sale at the valuations given to them by owners. Prices paid are to be credited to the accounts of the owners, although for the present the accounts are blocked.
There is no doubt that in international law these people are entitled to their assets or to compensation, but everything will depend on how the Ugandan legislation works. The Ugandan Government are aware of our views.
We have particularly sought and received assurances from the Ugandan Government, most recently on 20th November, covering the security of the persons


and the property of our nationals. President Amin has taken steps to ensure that properties are allocated by the appropriate board to qualified candidates and to prevent unauthorised seizure of properties left behind by departing Asians.
However, if the Ugandan measures lead, in effect, to expropriation, we shall demand prompt, adequate and effective compensation.
We all recognise the difficult problems that local authorities have had, even before the Ugandan episode occurred—problems of housing and education in particular. The hon. Member for West Ham, North mentioned this. We had some banter between the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) about authorities offering accommodation for refugees.
I acknowledge the generous offer of my own authority, Cambridge City Council, to refurbish special houses which had been temporarily derelict, in order to take—for some time, at least—between 10 and 20 families. I hope that they will be going forward soon.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South, talked about the problems of Brent. Yesterday I happened to see a deputation from the London Boroughs Association which included an alderman from Brent who was able to bring us up to date with the difficulties that Brent has had to face and how it has been coping.
The Uganda Resettlement Board sent out two or three circulars to local authorities, most recently at the beginning of November, explaining fully the special Government financial help that is available to them.
If the arrangements that we have suggested through the board for grant aid give rise to any anomalies or difficulties in practice, we will look at them again to see whether there is any way, within the general guidelines we have laid down, in which the Government can be more helpful.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What if local authorities feel that the grants are insufficient and that they are being expected to bear an unfair financial burden? Will that be negotiable?

Mr. Lane: We have not yet heard from the hon. Member's local authority, and until we do I cannot give him an answer. I sometimes wish that the hon. Member for West Ham, North would spend rather less time putting down Questions and rather more reading the answers that he is given.
I take four of the hon. Member's points. He criticised the Government for acting deliberately to create problems which they could have avoided. I reject that absolutely. He said that the Government should have met people from the red areas. We have met people from red areas and other areas regularly for the past few weeks, and Ministers have been out seeing for themselves how the problems have developed in the areas.
I reject the hon. Member's charge that the Government have not done enough to help areas like his own with their normal housing problems. I remind him of the Housing Finance Act, which is bringing considerable benefits to West Ham. He said that these people were not doing enough for themselves.

Mr. Lewis: I did not say that.

Mr. Lane: It was fully implied. The hon. Member has charged us with treating the refugees too well compared with our own people. In the centres they are increasingly involved in the business of cooking, cleaning and all the general work around the centres. There is no discrimination in social security benefits. If they are justified these are awarded on the same basis as for everyone.
The hon. Member's final charge was a ridiculous hearsay story of weeks ago about the centres being too comfortable. I repeat my invitation to him to come and see them for himself. Let us have a little less of this long-distance ill-informed criticism.

Mr. Lewis: I quoted what Patel said.

Mr. Lane: The hon. Member ought to get Mr. Praful Patel's name right before he starts to quote him.
We have been reviewing the situation of some Ugandan citizens—that is, in contrast with the United Kingdom passport holders about whom we have been mainly concerned—about 30 or 35 in number, whom we have been obliged to detain in this country during recent weeks.


These are Ugandan citizens who have attempted to come to this country and who have been refused entry. Some have been detained in difficult and crowded conditions.
After careful consideration, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided on humanitarian grounds to transfer from places of detention to resettlement centres those citizens of Uganda who have arrived here without entry clearances and who have been refused admission. However, the refusal of admission to the United Kingdom will stand and we shall continue with our international consultations with a view to their resettlement in third countries. I must make it clear to the House that these Ugandan citizens will be in the centres under restriction and will not be there for the purpose of arranging their settlement in this country. That is also being made clear to each of the Ugandans transferred to a centre.

Mr. Fred Evans: Can the compassion and anxiety that the hon. Gentleman has shown in his speech be extended to the people of my own small country, Wales? When will the hon. Gentleman cease to deny to people imprisoned in London the right to speak their own language?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Lane: I have enough problems at the moment without trying to take responsibility for Wales.
Through the three or four months of this operation so far some mistakes have certainly been made—it would have been surprising if there had not been in the circumstances. But on the whole we have seen a creditable response to what has been a national emergency.
Looking ahead, I am cautiously optimistic of the next phase. The Government are giving full support to the work of the Uganda Resettlement Board and are working in the closest liaison with it. This must continue, as it has been hitherto, to be a combined operation of the Government, the board, the local authorities, volunteers and many others.
We are determined to carry this operation through to a successful conclusion. We are determined that the refugees will be settled with the maximum dispersal

and with the least possible burden on areas where already there are considerable strains on the social facilities. We are determined that the refugees will be settled with a prospect of a good new life, of making their own way and contributing to the community. We are determined finally that the refugees should be settled with the minimum of delay in the strange surroundings into which they have been flung but in which, I hope, they will invariably be made welcome.

HEADS OF THE VALLEYS AUTHORITIES

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: We are raising the subject of the problems facing the Heads of the Valleys communities at this time because of the serious threat to the livelihood of so many of their people as a result of the announcement by the British Steel Corporation regarding the Ebbw Vale works. However, the major problems to which I shall refer pre-date that announcement, although the threat to Ebbw Vale now underlines the seriousness of the situation.
We are even more fearful now in the light of the lack of urgency and the Micawber-like attitude of the Secretary of State to the position of the Heads of the Valleys communities. In this connection I must say that, while we are grateful for the presence of the Minister of State, we consider that these issues go beyond his immediate responsibilities at the Welsh Office, and one can only greatly regret and condemn the continued parliamentary absenteeism of the Secretary of State on this as on so many other matters.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Where is the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas)?

Mr. Rowlands: If my right hon. Friend were Secretary of State, he would assuredly be here. I remind the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) that the degree of attention and scrutiny which members of the Labour Government paid to debates on Welsh affairs was infinitely superior to anything shown by the present Administration.
In the Heads of the Valleys we feel that not only have we suffered from a failure to provide effective industrial and


economic answers to the problems facing us, but that there has been a failure to identify the very problems themselves. The main charge we lay at the Government's door is that both the diagnosis and the prescription in the last two years have been wrong.
It has been a major contention of the Heads of the Valleys authorities, particularly at the recent Llantrisant new town public inquiry, that the Buchanan Report, upon which the new town proposals were based, neither analysed the problems of the Heads of the Valleys communities nor properly sought solutions. Perhaps I should say in passing that I have consistently regarded Professor Buchanan's work in Wales as a disaster. This has been true of everything he has touched.

Mr. Fred Evans: Not just in Wales, either.

Mr. Rowlands: In many aspects of planning Professor Buchanan has been a disaster, but in Wales he has been a particular disaster.
The Buchanan view is based upon two fallacies. The first is what one may call the curious doctrine of Buchanan economic determinism which suggests that the population drift from the valleys and the location of industry away from the valleys are an inevitable feature. The second fallacy is that the existing communities in the Heads of the Valleys areas are unable to accommodate and promote the growth that is required.
We reject entirely the writing-off of the potential of the areas which we represent. It is not inevitable. Loss of population need not be a fact of life for the Heads of the Valleys. It becomes a fact of life only if the Government allow it and do not plan to prevent it.
In propounding his blinkered view of the problems facing the Heads of the Valleys, Professor Buchanan chose to overlook a great deal of information which countered his conclusions and exposed them as a piece of predeterminist economic nonsense. The evidence presented to the Llantrisant inquiry by those representing the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference demonstrated both the true nature of the problem and the scale of potential.
I do not know whether the Minister of State wishes me to carry on in his absence. I see that he is leaving the Chamber.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The hon. Gentleman can carry on with his speech. I am still here.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas) is there.

Mr. Rowlands: The evidence presented was magnificent and I believe that none of us, even in the days before 1970, was fully aware of it. The evidence shows that after a rough time during the late 1950s through to the mid-I960s the net migration of population from the Glamorgan valleys was slowing down. Hopefully the population of the Glamorgan area was being stabilised. This is not true of the north Monmouthshire valleys, because the major contributory factor to the development of the Cwmbran new town prompted a further migration of the population from the north Monmouthshire valleys when it need not have happened.
I dwell on the point concerning the migration of population because the analysis provided by Mr. J. L. Edwards and Professor Howard Carter in evidence to the Cwmbran new town inquiry gives the lie to all those proponents and arguments, particularly those put forward by people like the Buchanans and the Nevins that we need to accept the rundown of the valleys and the migration of population as facts of economic life.
At that time in the mid-1960s, looking back on the experience of the late 1950s and early 1960s upon which most of the information, evidence and statistics were based, it might have seemed that it would be an uphill task to re-establish and restore the valley communities both economically and socially. The evidence, which was succinctly and effectively presented at the inquiry, reveals—as the experience of the late 1960s has shown, with more energetic regional industrial policies beginning to bite and to attract new industries into the area—that there was a considerable future prospect for the Heads of the Valleys areas.
The answer is that industries will come to the Heads of the Valleys areas, contrary to what was said by Professor


Buchanan and the ideas expressed in Wales in 1967. I have never withdrawn my view that the report was a document that could be interpreted as meaning all things to all men.
When one looks at the pattern of industrial development in the Heads of the Valleys areas in the late 1960s one sees, contrary to all previous impressions, that the Heads of the Valleys areas could attract new industries. They did relatively better, as a result of Government regional policy, in getting industry into the valleys areas than into the coastal areas of South Wales. It is now held out that the lusher parts of the coastal areas could be the saviour of the valleys' economies.
If one has effective regional economic policies with discrimination such as was in operation in the late 1960s, it can be demonstrated that one can attract new industries into an area which, if Professor Buchanan had had his way, would have been written off in the medium or long term.

Mr. Fred Evans: As a simple man and one who was born in a Welsh village, why should I have to move to find a job, instead of the job being brought to me? I wish to channel that question through my hon. Friend to the Minister.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand the sentiment and appreciate the question my hon. Friend would pose to the Minister. He is expressing something which is now a basic political fact of life in our communities: that what people are saying, and what the steel workers of Ebbw Vale will say, will not move the Government in what they say or do.
I rest my argument not only on the simple social fact that people will not move but also on the fact that, if a Government are committed to promoting development in these areas, there is nothing disadvantageous in those areas for future economic and industrial development. This was very much part of the evidence of many of our technical witnesses at the inquiry.
The evidence of the late 1950s and the early 1960s might have led one to ask what chance there was of getting new industries to meet the people's needs. When an effective regional policy had begun to bite we found that it could work,

and industry was attracted to the coastal areas, which are now seen to be the saviour of our economy.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I share the hon. Member's concern that the valley areas should enjoy economic prosperity. But would he not recognise that the coastal areas—we are thinking of a man's right to have a job near to where he lives—suffered from the discriminatory policy of his own Government when those areas were excluded from development area status, so that industry was extracted from those areas, which were already under-industrialised by other United Kingdom standards?

Mr. Rowlands: Suffering is a relative term. If the Cardiff area suffered in employment from 1966–70, its suffering from 1970–72 has been much worse.
The lesson we draw from the survey of industrial developments in the South Wales economy through the 1960s to the present day is that the failure has been to plan in advance of foreseeable problems—the decline of traditional industries like coal, steel and the railways. The railways made a major contribution to redundancy during this period.
The failure of the Labour Government's regional policy was that it could not match the loss of jobs from pit closures. We could not make up for the precious time lost when the coal industry began to show signs of decline. My point is particularly relevant to how the Government now react to the problems in the steel industry, particularly in Ebbw Vale.
Between 1950 and 1959 only four new firms came into my borough of Merthyr, with a marvellous total of 381 new jobs. During half that period the increase in the problems of the coal industry, particularly in South Wales, was there for all to see. The writing was on the wall. Even between 1960 and 1964, when no one now can deny that the industry was in decline, only 10 firms came into the borough to employ an extra 391 people. From 1965 to 1970 27 firms came in, to employ over 1,600 people. The scale of industrial development was remarkable testimony to a regional policy which many of us were eager to see made even more effective and thought could be


strengthened in so many ways. Even that expansion could not match the loss of jobs.
The same pattern of very lean years can be found in Aberdare and other valley communities. In an interesting and perceptive case study of Merthyr—evidence which I cannot find in the Buchanan Report on Llantrisant, and which he clearly ignored or did not look for—Mr. J. Edwards from the Department of Geography at Aberystwyth showed that what places like Merthyr needed was guaranteed long-term support from the Government. Given that support, and the corollary of effective controls of industrial development in the congested areas of the South-East and the Midlands, areas like Merthyr and the Heads of the Valleys can play a major role in the regional economy.
Mr. Edwards concluded his case study with a question: "Will the Government accept this challenge?" We ask the same question tonight. Can the Government accept the challenge of the potential of industrial development in this area? We should not have to ask: the answer should be automatically "Yes". But the response of the Government to the new crisis is far short of what is needed, politically and personally. Will the Secretary of State have the will and the guts to take up the new challenge?
The real indictment of the Government in respect of the major industrial, economic and employment problems of the area, particularly over the last two years, is that they have not learned the lessons of their own experience of the late 1950s and early 1960s. They have again lost two years of precious time when they could have been tackling the foreseeable problems. We have had two years of a regional policy of amnesia. The Secretary of State has trundled behind his lame duck colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. He accepted the smashing of the Labour Government's regional organisation in a fit of ill-tempered, doctrinaire spite. He has now suddenly come out of his amnesia and has remembered that he is responsible.

Mr. Fred Evans: My hon. Friend is flattering him.

Mr. Rowlands: I am giving him the minimum benefit of the doubt. He now comes out of his amnesia, and in the Industry Act of May and June this year we have an original policy which we may be able to try to work.
The Secretary of State cannot be surprised—that is why it is regrettable that he is not here tonight—that we did not welcome his conversion. He cannot expect the generosity he seemed to expect at Question Time a week or so ago.
He felt then that we should go down on our knees and be thankful for the largesse of 1,000 new jobs to be created in Merthyr, when in 18 months—

Mr. Evans: Merthyr is lucky.

Mr. Rowlands: Merthyr may be lucky, but we have 1,000 jobs in the pipeline, having lost 1,200 in the last 12 months. Is that what prosperity means to Merthyr and the Heads of the Valleys?
The Secretary of State was expressing remarkable complacency from the Dispatch Box, but then we heard of the threat to 4,500 jobs is Ebbw Vale that would affect whole communities. The news went through the Heads of the Valley areas like a cold chill. The Minister told us that there were only 16,000 jobs in the pipeline for the whole of Wales—half the number in the pipeline in 1970.
It is not only his complacency which we reject and about which we feel strongly and bitterly. That is why we reacted so strongly to his remarks a fortnight ago.
I wish that the Secretary of State was here, because I would like to say these things to him directly.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member can say it to me in my right hon. and learned Friend's absence.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall say it in his absence, because his absence is his fault.
The Secretary of State has not risen to the seriousness of the situation. I do not know if I am speaking only for myself—perhaps my hon. Friends will tell me whether they share my impression—but when we went on a deputation to see the right hon. Member about the steel industry I came away more concerned and worried than when I went in.
I share the view expressed in two Western Mail leaders in the last fortnight which said that politically the response of the Secretary of State has fallen far short of matching the crisis facing the Heads of the Valleys areas.
We feel, contrary to the view which might understandably have been held in the mid-sixties, that the only way to solve the problems of the Heads of the Valleys area was by growth in the coast area; that it has now been shown how successful these areas can be, given assistance and contributions to their economy on a scale that this Government, I think, are not prepared to adopt.
We have formulated a series of specific demands to meet the needs of our areas. There is a policy vacuum at present, and to fill it it is imperative that we have an immediate response to our demands. This should come from the Minister, preferably this evening but certainly within weeks rather than years.
I therefore put a series of specific requests—action points for a programme of action which we feel would be the answer to our problems in the area.
I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm that no decision has been made about Ebbw Vale, and that the Government have informed the British Steel Corporation that the Cabinet must make the final decision on any contraction there.
I also draw attention to the notice of resolution passed by the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference, of which the Minister has received a copy:
At last Friday's meeting of the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference it was resolved to write to Mr. Peter Walker, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in view of his final responsibility for the level of unemployment and the conduct of the steel industry, that he should give an absolute undertaking that no steps will be taken to carry out any of the proposals for the future of the Ebbw Vale steelworks made by Lord Melchett on 16th November until the full social implications of these proposed measures for the whole area have been examined by his Department and the Welsh Office and reported to all the local authorities concerned.
That resolution is the joint concern of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The second point I want to put to the Minister is that in the light of the evi-

dence first put to him at the Llantrisant new town inquiry—evidence not known to the present or previous Government—about the pattern of economic development in the Heads of the Valleys and the new threat of the loss of 4,500 jobs in the area as a result of the BSC announcement, he should announce as soon as possible the abandonment or shelving of the new town proposal. Whatever our views—and there has been opinion on both sides for and against the proposal—nothing must now detract from the total effort required to be put into providing jobs and resources in the Heads of the Valleys area, into rebuilding the infrastructure and providing the job opportunities that will be needed.
Thirdly, I shall be grateful if the Minister will now undertake to make an urgent study of the request made by hon. Members representing all the Heads of the Valleys authorities that a Heads of the Valleys development corporation be established. Such a corporation, which has been outlined in the recent works of Professor Carter, of Aberystwyth, would be able to plan and finance the development of the area as a whole. In the meantime, urgent attention must be given to studies paving the way for industrial development in the area. One of the myths that are perpetuated is that the area cannot accommodate new industrial development. There are just over 1,100 acres of potential industrial land in the area, on about 40 sites. If fully developed, they would provide about 45,000 jobs, which would more than meet the growth potential of the Heads of the Valleys economy and offset whatever redundancies may occur in any of the basic industries in the area.
However, we accept, and have never denied, that only a handful of the 40 sites are ready for building and industrial development. Only about 140 of the 1,100 acres can be said to be fully prepared. Only 16 of the 40 sites are larger than 10 acres.
I am much struck by a concept being discussed now that there should be layers of investment in the South Wales economy—that rather than our going for a great splurge in one place like Llantrisant there should be much more subtle planning of industrial investment in each area, to suit the locality's requirements and exploit to the full the potential of each of the existing communities.

Mr. Fred Evans: We are not interested in layering, or this and that, the plain fact is that our locality is not going to put up with the intolerable burden of declining communities. We are not going to put up with job losses. The Minister had better think again, and he had better tell the Secretary of State to think again. He should forget the nonsense about Llantrisant and ensure that there is massive investment in the Heads of the Valleys area. If he does not, then his Government will be in trouble and he will cause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it plain that long interventions are not helpful, and I must draw the attention of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) to the fact that long speeches do not help either, and that very long speeches are not helpful when there are 11 debates to follow this one. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will speedily draw his remarks to a close.

Mr. Rowlands: We are talking about the economic future of a very large area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not going to argue with the Chair. I have made the position quite plain.

Mr. Rowlands: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that I shall be able to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion.
I referred to layers of investment. Clearly, in the middle valleys there is only limited scope for industrial development along the line of the A472 trans-valley route. There is scope for medium-sized industrial development. I know of a site that adjoins three constituencies. It is just outside Merthyr Tydvil, and there is great potential for industrial development there. The area has not been exploited or looked at or considered—

Mr. Michael Roberts: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot give way, because of what the Chair has said. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a duty to the Chair as well.
A study of industrial sites in the area reveals that their development will clearly involve more effort and a high degree of co-operation between local and regional

authorities, and the rôle of a future development corporation would be vital in this context. It could be the catalyst that is needed.
But at the Heads of the Valleys lies the chief opportunity to provide a couple of major sites which could solve the major industrial economic problems and provide job opportunities for the area, and these should be earmarked for large-scale development. Instead of each local authority, instead of each of us trying to develop within our own patches, I believe that we should pool our effort, resources and expertise to develop about two major growth points. The Government will find no narrow-minded parochialism about whose patch the developments should be in.

Mr. Michael Roberts: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it plain that the hon. Member has spoken for a long time. I hope that he will now bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Rowlands: What I am saying is that the Government, in conjunction with the local authorities, should get down to developing two major sites.
Finally, we think it is essential to have a heavy investment in the infrastructure. We have poor road communications. We need to invest heavily in more communications. We have a legacy of old schools, poor housing and derelict land. The clearing of an extra 3,000 acres could be added to the work of the Monmouthshire derelict land unit. We believe that we could spend an annual budget of £3 million, and I hope that the Minister will be able to underwrite such expansion and will not curb the momentum.
With the commitment, with the financial resources and with positive intervensionist regional policies the future of the Heads of the Valleys can be assured. We believe that with the programme outlined tonight our existing communities—Merthyr, Aberdare, Ebbw Vale and others—could be the new towns of the future.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. So comprehensive has been the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr


Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) that my remarks can be curtailed.
We are talking about areas of South Wales whose very names—Ebbw Vale, Merthyr Tydfil—mean a good deal to people well beyond the areas, and this debate about the future will be of significance well beyond the borders of South Wales. We are talking about an area that has not been left entirely high and dry without the benefit of any postwar prosperity but has had the frustrating experience of constantly rising but equally constantly unfulfilled expectations. So we have had superficial prosperity, hidden poverty, and underemployment, hidden unemployment. These are two manifestations of a community which is in gradual and undramatic decline.
With the rundown of the coal mining industry and the recent tragic proposals for Ebbw Vale, this gradual decline is likely to become more dramatic, and it will call for a more dramatic response from the public and the representatives of the people in the area. In the last few years, as a consequence of this continual sapping decline, we have seen two developments. We have seen the decision-makers who think that as long as they can hold the position to a respectable level of stagnation they will have conducted a successful operation. That is a counsel of despair. We have also seen the people who have come to think that they must get used to living in a second-class society and have what Ernest Bevin once called "a poverty of expectation". This presents a depressing picture.
The Heads of the Valleys local authorities in recent years have shown that they intend to stand and fight. They are an exception to the general rule that the decision-makers and the people of the area have come to agree with each other that fate, Government, private enterprise, history, or whatever, has dictated their destiny, and conspired to make them a generation that is bearing the burden of the introduction of technology and the gradual decline of the community in which they live.
The Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference is a manifestation at local level of the solidarity of workers against the argument of force that has been pre-

sented by the Government with diminishing effect in the last two-and-a-half years since the victory flush of 1970 when they thought that everyone should stand on his own feet and that they could carry the country on atavistic principles long gone by the time the 1930s drew to a close. We have had all that. It is no good the Government's now pretending that they have seen the light, or have come to a deliberate resolution about new policies. The reason why the Government have changed their attitude is that they have been resoundingly defeated. In the battles with the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the miners, and in several other large and small battles, they have been defeated.
The population and the public representatives in the Heads of the Valleys are Democratic Socialists. By definition, as Aneurin Bevan said, that is a temperate creed, and the consequence is that they are temperate men. But they now realise that the decline can go on no longer, so they have taken a decision along the lines of decisions made by other working-class representatives in the last three years in other parts of the country that now they will combine and show their solidarity and indicate their determination not to accept any further decline. It is just as well that they have done this, because the Government understand the language of force. People are now teaching the Government that two can play at that game, however reluctantly. Instead of asking for Government assistance, people are talking about the inalienable right to work. Instead of these local authorities being supplicant they are becoming adamant.
This denotes a major change in political attitudes and attitudes towards expectations in life. If there are any theoreticians left in Conservative Party headquarters I hope that they have taken note of this change in mood, attitude and aspiration of people in general. It would be easy to be thought of as either a political science-fiction writer or a wild academic to draw these feelings from those who we on the Opposition side of the House represent. But that is the nature of the change which has taken place, and it might dictate the relationship between Government and people in areas like the Heads of the Valleys throughout the country in the future.
After years of running faster and faster in order to stand still, in terms of development, employment and population, the people and the representatives of the Heads of the Valleys are starting to assert that they expect certain things from life. They expect to obtain co-operation from the Government for social reasons. They will certainly exchange economic arguments. We are not talking of people who think that the world owes them a living. These people will exchange ideas and present the evidence that we have so often presented in the House and elsewhere. They are saying that the Heads of the Valleys is a good and suitable place for modern industry to develop. All that will go on.
On the economic criteria, the Heads of the Valleys people are saying that we cannot have a quick or efficacious answer to the problems of this area if we rely simply on economic criteria. Unemployment has now become a social problem and it is social answers that must be provided.
In order to abbreviate my remarks I shall quote Mr. James Kegie, the planning officer of Monmouthshire. No one would call him a raving Bolshevik. I describe him as a dedicated and humane technocrat. That is the nature of Mr. Kegie. He is very good at his job. In his latest quarterly report he says:
Many leading economists are agreed that further financial investment incentives to expand industrial production will in practice create very few additional jobs"—
I would not altogether agree with that, but there is substance in what he says,
and that unemployment is increasingly becoming a social problem. At the moment the Government is endeavouring to tackle this major problem from the aspect of expanding production and achieving economic growth"—
again, he is an optimist—
It would appear, with little doubt, that the problem will not be capable of solution only within the economic sphere, but that important decisions will have to be taken of the type mentioned previously in this Report which have wide social implications.
The kind of decisions that he mentions are raising the school leaving age, lower retirement age, and reduced working hours. He then promulgates the idea of some kind of population control policy, which might be a suitable basis for a debate on a future Consolidated Fund

Bill. But that encapsulates the nature of the change in attitudes and values.
The problems are obvious and many. The solutions to some are more easily attempted than others. This area will suffer grievously from entry to the European Economic Community. That is one of the main reasons why, on behalf of all the people for whom I speak, I have become more and more determined in my opposition to Britain's entry.
There is also the unresolved problem of the prospect of the development of a new town at Llantrisant. There is incontrovertible evidence that that will act as a magnet pulling on the areas that we are trying to serve. That contention is not seriously questioned.
There is the threat of the loss of 4,500 jobs at Ebbw Vale—the one guaranteed bastion and last resort of employment opportunity for over 30 years in the area of which I am speaking. No wonder my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil spoke of a cold chill running through the Heads of the Valleys. That cold chill might turn into very hot anger if the Government are not forthcoming with guarantees and undertakings that they will tackle the problems in prospect if and when the 4,500 jabs are lost at the British Steel Corporation's works in Ebbw Vale. If that were to happen it would almost be more humane of the Government either to bomb these areas out of existence or to dam them and flood the valleys they serve, because that is the kind of dereliction which would come to the Heads of the Valleys area if 4,500 jobs and all that went with them were lost without their being replaced, or more than replaced, by jobs expansion.
The scale of the problem is illustrated by Mr. Kegie's quarterly report. Let me take a few of the employment exchanges in the Heads of the Valleys area. At Brynmawr, Ebbw Vale, Pontlottyn and Tredegar there are 112 vacancies and several thousand people unemployed.

Mr. Fred Evans: What about Bargoed?

Mr. Kinnock: I could also give Bargoed, but I am very conservative, in order to be absolutely fair. In fact, I am being more than fair by counting only those employment exchanges which border on the A465. I could go down the valleys to Bargoed, Blackwood and other parts of my constituency and the constituency


of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans). But, taking four of the employment exchanges adjacent to the A465, there are 14 workers for every vacancy. The West Monmouthshire total as a sub-region of Monmouthshire is 22 workers to every registered vacancy. The United Kingdom ratio is four to one.
When the unemployment and vacancy figures are published each month, Ministers and editors try to explain and rationalise the way in which the unemployment situation is improving. If we take one rule of thumb and compare the number of people looking for jobs with the number of jobs which exist against the background of long-term decline, we are talking about a disaster area on which further disasters may be visited. Among the people who must command our attention and not just silly, meaningless compassion but direct action, are the youngsters. The youth employment officer for my area, Mr. Denzil Cole, says in his quarterly report:
It is very disheartening to have to write that many young people with very low academic attainments could remain unemployed for a very long time, perhaps even years. A survey is being undertaken by the National Youth Employment Council to investigate the employment opportunity for less able school leavers. It is hoped that as a result suitable measures will be taken to cater for these young people".
He was talking about the less able.
At the other end of the A465, at Pontypool, 400 science-based jobs are being lost, and the prospect of employment for well-qualified sixth formers is at its lowest. Welsh graduates will not be able to return to the technological and science-based industries. We are being driven from both ends of the scale—whether we are trying to provide jobs for labourers or for the highly intelligent products of our schools. Those are the facts and the implications which we must draw to the attention of the House, the Minister and the people we represent. Those are the facts as they present themselves to the people of these areas in 1972.
As I have said, we have been going through a decline, and the Government must take their share of the blame. The situation is best expressed by Mr. Kegie's figures, which he takes from the Department of Employment. Mr. Kegie says:

It is apparent that the trend towards increasing unemployment in Monmouthshire is continuing, but at a lessening rate. The total number of unemployed in the county in September, 1972 was 11,997 compared with 11,320 in September, 1971 and 8,801 in September, 1970, the 1972 figure representing a 6 per cent. increase on the 1971 figure, which itself was 28·6 per cent. higher than the 1970 figure.
That is the situation which we are talking about in the whole of Monmouthshire. It is more than reflected in the areas, which seemed to have basic difficulties even before we entered into a decline that has been almost sponsored by the Government through the years of neglect since 1970.
The Government are guilty of killing the best chance that we had of real development of resilient industry, permanent prosperity and guaranteed opportunity in the Heads of the Valleys area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil has said—and as we have all said during various Question Times and debate—there was a build-up. It was possible to talk about the prospect of employment and an opportunity break-through for the Heads of the Valleys in 1970.
The Government will never be forgiven for letting that chance slip away by the reversal of policies and by their general misconduct of economic affairs in this country. The fact remains that the people will remember all that. What we need now, if the Government are to recant—as they have shown it is their intention to do, for whatever reason—is compensation and compensatory action for their neglect. We want these areas to be protected by action to assist existing industry. We want increasing discrimination for these areas. There must be a reversal of policy.
If we compare the map of assisted areas in 1966 with the present map, it is shown that the whole idea of discriminatory regional policy has been completely shot to pieces by the extension of assisted areas. We are falling between two stools. We must have a programme, as my hon. Friend said, for re-equipping these areas, whether it is in the form of preparing small and medium-sized sites serviced for industrial occupation or improving the social furniture of schools, hospitals and roads.
I am not a back bencher who is simply asking the Government to spend more


money; I am saying that the social furniture, among other things, is now inadequate in the valleys. In 1972 these people should reasonably be able to expect to have the security of these services, as well as the opportunities. But they are not there. They require more money. If the Government wanted to appoint a priority area they could begin with the Heads of the Valleys area.
It is more important for the Government to try to guarantee the inflow of jobs. Certainly they can continue to offer carrots, but the carrots should be supported far more by incentives. Some of them, like the IDCs, they have practically abandoned. There is no reason why we cannot have more office development, which provided 1,250 jobs in Wales last year. That is hopelessly inadequate. There is no reason why there cannot be that sort of development adjacent to the Brecon Beacons, which is a national park. It is a good place to live. We need large-scale opportunities for jobs—for example, the building of a new prison or a large approved school—in these areas. They might not bring immediate popularity but they would provide social jobs and dovetail with any Government intention to provide a long-needed expansion and improvement of the prison service.
These are some ideas. My hon. Friend gave a comprehensive development survey. I added my voice to his because I am from Tredegar and am a Heads of the Valleys man, and because the communities of the Heads of the Valleys have a common destiny. If the Government do not follow policies such as we have suggested they will have completely neglected and betrayed any aspirations which the people of that area have, and they will have to live with the consequences.

1.45 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am glad that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) raised this subject for debate. If his speech fell below his usual level it was perhaps because he spent so much time in attacking individuals and the Government of which he was a member. I had hoped to hear from him some reference to his own local authority and what it has done, not only under

this Government but the previous one as well.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), on the other hand, made what I think the House will consider to be a positive speech. He was at least thinking in original terms, although I was disappointed that he did not pursue what I thought would be the dissertation on democratic Socialism which he has promised us in the past but never given. But his speech was worth listening to.
I well remember, as does the House, the late Stephen Davies, who used to represent Merthyr Tydvil. He was never backward in bringing Merthyr's problems to the attention of the Government. He never flinched from criticising the Government, irrespective of party. We remember the melody and imagery of his speeches, and I, for one, miss him very much—as I am sure do others.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil gave too little credit for what has been done. If we are to attract new industry and create an environment fit for our people there to enjoy, let us at least take pride in what is being done. Three facts are crucial. The first and probably the most striking feature of the area is its geography—a series of steep valleys running north and south, bringing many problems of communications and finding sites for new industry. Secondly, and equally striking, is the historic dependence of the area on the two basic industries of coal and steel. This has inevitably caused difficulties of industrial redeployment when such industries have declined or have been under stress. These two factors have contributed for some time to a steady decline in the total population, which is the third factor.
In 1961, for example, the population was 355,000. It had fallen to 347,000 by 1970. The population is, of course, an ageing one. The proportion of people aged 45 and over is growing more rapidly than in Wales as a whole, although this may not be so true in the lower parts of the Valleys.
None of these facts is new. The difficulties of geography are the same for any Administration. The decline of the coal industry, and the reasons for it, are well known to hon. Members opposite. Population drift is something which all concerned with the Valleys in the past decade


have found difficult to check. After all, people are free to come and go as they wish.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is the Minister telling us that people willingly desert their roots, or do they do it of necessity? Would he tell my people in Wales that they would rather cross the border and go into Europe than remain in their own homes, provided with jobs and job opportunities at all levels?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was saying that Governments of both sides have had to deal with the problem of dwindling and moving populations.

Mr. Evans: The Minister accepted it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member should allow me to make my speech and contain himself, even if he contains too much. The problems have been with us for some time.
It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcomed the idea proposed at a meeting last October of a Heads of the Valleys study. The need for such a study was recognised by all present—hon. Members and representatives of local authorities.
The final version is not yet complete. We are waiting the considered comments of the local authorities. But the time which has been needed to bring the report even to its present stage is an indication of the measure and size of the problem.
Meanwhile, the Government have been taking action. It is essential to get new jobs into the area, and to do this we must sustain and expand economic confidence so that industry is willing to go for more investment.
This is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so bold and expansionist in his Budgets. Confidence is reviving. Economic growth is at the 5 per cent. per annum level which we forecast.
The Valleys, and not just the Heads of the Valleys, are expanding. There is new industry and expansion of existing industry.
Examples of this are the move of the Moss Engineering Group into factories at Merthyr and Tredegar and the development at Merthyr by Abboflex Ltd. Hoover

is expanding in Merthyr. In New Tredegar LCR Components has announced a project; at Abercynon AB Electronics is taking over a vacant advance factory. At Aberdare Welstrude Ltd. have taken an advance factory.
All this activity is reflected in the heartening change in unemployment figures since the start of the year. Looking at the travel-to-work areas we can see that the rate in Aberdare has fallen from 5·9 per cent. to 5·3 per cent.; in Bargoed from 10 per cent. to 7·7 per cent.; Abertillery 6·8 per cent. to 5·2 per per cent.: and I am sure the hon. Member for Merthyr will have noted the drop there from 7·7 per cent. to 4·7 per cent., which is very welcome.

Mr. Kinnock: Before the Minister makes too much of the figures, would he comment on the figures for Brynmawr and Pontlottyn?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I shall deal with that on another occasion. Although within the area, they are not included within the Heads of the Valleys area.

Mr. Rowlands: They are.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: All right, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in being glad that the figures are considerably better.
Certain areas need more special treatment. That is why we introduced the Industry Act, which provides a powerful range of incentives to investment in areas, such as the Heads of the Valleys, which need extra job opportunities.
We have set up in Wales an Industrial Development Board to ensure that decisions on aid to industry are made locally and promptly. But hon. Members opposite are asking: Is this enough? Will it be enough when there is the threat of a major rundown, such as that envisaged for Ebbw Vale?
My right hon. and learned Friend and I are in no doubt about the implications of these intended closures for the Heads of the Valleys, particularly for Ebbw Vale. We are therefore directing our efforts at the aim of replacing as many of the job opportunities as possible.
This is a major task and by no means easy, even with the full powers of the Industry Act to help, and the Secretary of State has therefore called for the fullest


report which will cover, amongst other things, training and possible action which could be taken over the whole infrastructure of the area. I repeat what the Secretary of State has already said—everything that can be done to help the area will be done.
This leads me to the arguments advanced about the proposed Llantrisant new town. Hon. Members have suggested, in the context of the proposed rundown of the Ebbw Vale steelworks, that the Llantrisant new town proposal should be scrapped and that, instead, resources should be diverted to assist Ebbw Vale and other Valley communities. At this stage hon. Members have an advantage. Unlike the Secretary of State, they are in a position to comment, although they will be aware of what was said by their Government on this matter.
The Secretary of State must plainly wait until he has studied the report on the public local inquiry into objections to the draft designation order. The inspector's report is expected early in the new year. But the argument that investment in the Llantrisant new town would he at the expense of any necessary investment in the Valley communities is surely mistaken.
That was made clear in the statement made on behalf of the Secretary of State at the Llantrisant inquiry, when it was said that
there was no question of existing communities having to compete with a new town for public funds … in order to undertake projects which they felt were essential for the needs of their own communities … say a derelict land clearance scheme in Merthyr or of housing improvements in the Rhondda, or an advance factory in Ebbw Vale or Tredegar
This is an assurance that I am glad to repeat.
There has been reference to roads. There is no argument but that one of the key factors in the future economy of this area is the availability of good communications. The Government recognise this and are planning accordingly. The value of the Heads of the Valleys road in this connection cannot be overstated. But its usefulness has been limited, perhaps, by its poor links to the east and west. These are now in process of substantial improvement.
To the east a new dual carriageway road linking Abergavenny to the New

Midlands road at Raglan is in an advanced stage of preparation. When these works are completed the area will be easily accessible by road from both West Glamorgan and the Midlands and the north of England.
To the west, lengths of dual carriageway totalling nearly 10 miles are under construction; that is the Glynneath bypass and a new road between Aberdulais and Llandarcy; in addition, a dual carriageway road to close the eight-mile gap between Aberdulais and Glynneath is in the preparation pool.
The other major improvement to communications will be the completion of the new A470 which will eventually link the area with the M4. The first stage of this road—Tongwynlais to Nantgarw—was opened in December 1971. The second and third stages—Nantgarw to Abercynon—are being built and both will, it is hoped, be completed by the end of 1973. I wish that I could give the House a promise of early completion of the remaining two stages of this road. But it is absolutely essential for detailed soil surveys to be carried out if we are to find the best route for this road. We should not try to prescribe a line for this road and to go ahead without our being quite sure of the geological constraints. Those who may be affected by the proposals must be allowed time, too, to make known their views; their rights and interests must be respected.
Hon. Members have pressed for specific assurances about steel. The Government will be making a statement about this as soon as reasonably possible. I do not intend to say anything tonight which could be said to prejudge that announcement. What I can say—and say helpfully, I think—is that the concern which has been expressed is as much the concern of this side of the House as it is of the other. It is the Government's first concern, as it is of us all, that the Heads of the Valleys should play their part in the economy of Wales and its industrial future. We are all concerned with the future of the area.
There is a call for action to help the area. This action will be taken. But we must not think that the area is one whose problems can be cured only by old remedies. The area's strength is its resilience and its capacity to welcome


change. New remedies are needed, and new industry of all kinds, including service industries. I am glad that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has given me an opportunity tonight to stress some of the things which the Government think important in this area.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

2.1 a.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: One of the side-effects—whether intentional or not—of the Civil Aviation Act has been to make debates on civil aviation even rarer than they previously were. This is unfortunate, and the misfortune is the greater because it coincides with a period of rapid development in the industry both in organisation and in technology, and it coincides also with a time when we are having to face the consequences of the wider use of the aeroplane as a holiday vehicle. These are matters of legitimate public concern, and I believe that expression of public concern about them by public representatives would be of advantage.
That is not to say that I am striking a critical note as regards the Civil Aviation Authority itself. It seems to me to have made a very good start, and it has chosen its priorities with care. In particular, I commend the chairman of the Authority, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who seems to have applied the talents which he displayed in the House to the benefit of civil aviation as a whole. I have found him approachable, and, in particular, I pay a tribute to him for his help in enabling Glamorgan County Council to secure an instrument landing system for Rhoose airport. It is hoped that this will be installed early next year, and it should enable the airport to take its rightful place in civil aviation and afford a better service for the rapidly growing public demand in the area for air transport.
Nevertheless, the work of the authority has been somewhat hampered in two ways by the guidance given by the Minister to it in February, 1972. I refer, first, to paragraph 17 of the guidance—it is Cmnd. 4899—dealing with the ques-

tion of British Caledonian. I still do not understand how it is presumed that the Civil Aviation Authority can carry out its duties both under Section 3 of the Act and under paragraph 17, which ties its hands not only at present but for the foreseeable future.
Nothing can take back the guidance which has already been given, and, perhaps, for the initial period the Government felt it necessary to give British Caledonian this favoured treatment in the market. But I should like the Government to set a time limit for the operation of paragraph 17 in its present form, so that the authority may carry out its duty under Section 3 of the Act unprejudiced by any inbuilt bias, which is a negation of the Government's doctrine of free competition—if in these days of change that is now their doctrine.
Secondly, the authority's work is hampered under paragraphs 20 and 21 of the guidance because of the extreme vagueness of the words used with regard to regional air services. The words in the guidance certainly do not measure up to the promise which the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), gave the Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill on 22nd April, 1971—it is col. 59 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—when he agreed that there was a good case for putting some suitable words into the White Paper which gave guidance to the CAA on this question. What appeared did not in any way meet that promise. It provided vague and nebulous guidance.
There is an urgent need for an examination of the rôle which the aviation industry and services can play towards the building up of the regions. There is an urgent need to sift the truth from the myth concerning regional air services. I should like to highlight two instances. I know that the Highlands and Islands Review is now under way. In view of the recent announcement by BEA of the re-equipping of its fleet for services to the Islands I hope that the results of that review will not be too long delayed. The review should take place as speedily as possible.
The second aspect of regional development which I hope the authority will consider is the implications of building the third London airport at Foulness or Maplin Sands. The reality of that decision


for most of the country will render the major international airport more inaccessible to many areas. It will be a negation of the speed of air transport if people are able to fly into the third London airport very quickly but are then faced with an interminable land journey to the regions, or vice versa.
I hope that the Authority will consider urgently the rôle of feeder air services from our regional airports to Foulness, so that they can link up with the major international air services. In that way we can achieve speed throughout the entire journey, and not merely on one stage.
I now deal with one subject where the authority has been much less successful. We have heard with considerable disappointment that the projected moves of the staff and the headquarters of the authority from central London to the outskirts have now been abandoned. That is a retrograde step. It is entirely to the good of this country for civil servants and public employees to be dispersed from central London to the maximum extent possible. This is a fine chance for the authority to move out into one of the less favoured regions, where the additional jobs—in particular, those of a clerical type which are all too short in the regions—would help to provide a much-needed boost. We have airports in the regions. The authority would be as accessible as it is at Kingsway.
I hope that the authority will reconsider its decision not to move out of central London, and will take the lead in the dispersal of Government staff.
I should like to concentrate mainly upon the successes of the authority during this period. By far the best job done by the authority has been to crack the crib of high-cost transportation. It gives initiative to secure for the public cheaper transport for holidays without sacrificing reliability. We have been sickened by instances of rule bending by the so-called affinity groups which have been so widely publicised in recent years, particularly during the summer. We have also been aware of the human misery inflicted upon the travelling public by a minority of dishonest or negligent operators. I emphasise that they are in a minority. The bad publicity they have caused is out of all proportion to their place in the industry. Such stories have been all too fre-

quent. They have led to a growth in dissatisfaction with the tour operators.
I extend a welcome to the advance-charter and part-charter concepts. They should avoid the scenes, which have been seen in our living rooms on the television screen, of stranded people and passengers being hauled off flights.
I heard the announcement on Monday of the decision by the authority to licence air tour operators, although I realise it is much too early for the Minister to give a final pronouncement upon the value of this scheme. I would therefore like to raise two points in connection with the scheme which are not entirely clear, in the hope that the authority will amplify its directive to the public benefit.
According to The Times air correspondent, reporting on this decision, there will be three types of licence—A, B and C. Type B will be the licence for the inclusive tour operator. In its Press release the authority has said that it does not deal with questions of hotel accommodation, since they are outside its responsibility. I accept this, but, in granting these licences, the authority cannot divorce itself from all the facets of the operator's organisation. It would destroy much of the value of the licensing scheme if the authority were to continue to grant licences to an operator who flew his passengers there and back promptly, but whose holidays otherwise were marred by hotels which did not live up to their description. I hope that the authority will take these factors into account when considering whether a particular operator is a suitable holder of a licence.
The second point that I hope the authority will deal with is the financial criteria for tour operators. The Press release says:
In considering a travel organiser's financial resources, the Authority will be unlikely to grant a licence unless the most recent balance sheet shows a surplus of assets over liabilities appropriate to the nature and scale of the applicant's business.
I hope that we will have clarification of that. There have been many alarms about travel agencies in recent years. Some famous names have incurred heavy losses. I read in BEA News on 9th November that a survey done by the authority of 56 tour operators revealed that 19 shared losses of £9·6 million and


that the other 37, between them, made a profit of only £975,000. This is a very serious financial position. It is an unhappy state of affairs and will demand the closest scrutiny by the authority when granting licences.
I want to raise certain questions on aircraft safety. According to paragraph 8 of the guidance, the authority should aim at a high standard of safety in the operation of aircraft and the use of aerodromes. I fear that public anxiety as to the operational safety of aircraft is growing in the light of recent events. This is a difficult matter to put, and I do not intend to be thought to be supporting any criticism of any authority, but the Minister may have heard on "The World at One" today that a speaker felt free to say that because of staff difficulties in BEA he felt that a safety hazard was being caused to flights.
The second point arising from the current inquiry is that it is now apparent from evidence given that no training to combat stalls of the type which actually occurred was given prior to this fatality, although one previous incident had occurred. That gives rise to a question mark at any rate as to the adequacy of instruction to deal with emergency.
I hope that as a matter of necessity the authority will intervene in this highly sensitive and most important field to investigate and reassure us if that proves to be necessary. I hope that it will also intervene in the ancillary field of the Concorde simulator. The Minister will know that questions have been asked whether it is planned to get one for this country. The only one planned at the moment is to be sited in France. That is not good enough to deal with these matters of national prestige. Clearly, the demands of flight safety necessitate the provision of Concorde simulators in this country, and I hope that the authority will enable that to be done.
By the use of aerodromes we mean the current phenomenon of aircraft terrorism and hijacking. I am not satisfied that all is well here. The position is at its most favourable at the international airports, although the degree of safety varies even at those. But, unfortunately, it is not only the international airports which are at risk in this modern age. Our smaller

regional airports are also highly vulnerable to the activities of the hijacker or terrorist.
It is consequently with some alarm that I read of a BEA captain being suspended because he alleged that the safety precautions at Aldergrove Airport, of all places—in Northern Ireland—are not adequate. Surely there is sufficient probability of an incident there to make the security as tight as could possibly be imagined. Yet, in the view of one responsible captain, that is not so. In the summer, we read of the escapade at Liverpool, when two people set out to demonstrate how inadequate the security precautions were at that airport, and were wholly successful.
I hope that the authority will consider this question. It may be regrettable that our small British Isles airports have to be regarded as vulnerable, but we should be lacking in realism if we did not concede at any rate the possibility of this being so in the next few years.
I hope that the authority will also consider the financial implications. I know that the Government are helping the airlines to meet the cost of searching and so on, but the local authorities which run these airports are being put to a great deal of expense in providing antiterrorist measures. They are not the causes of the present situation; they are the innocent victims of international tensions. So I hope that the authority will consider recommending to the Government that they should provide money towards the local authority-run airports, as distinct from the British Airports Authority ones, to help them to introduce and maintain a high standard of security. This matter is far too important to be approached in a penny-pinching manner.
One of the duties laid on the authority is to have regard to the environment. How much progress is being made towards suppressing aircraft noise? The prime need of modern aviation is not necessarily faster travel between centres but the provision of quieter aircraft, which will use less space to take off and which are in all ways more "liveable with" by those on the fringes of airports than are the present generation of aircraft. High priority should be given.
The Minister will know that in Caxton Hall there was a symposium about quiet


aircraft in which the Civil Aviation Authority took part and which was mainly sponsored by local authorities in the London area, which are desperately worried and plagued by aircraft noise. This problem is not confined to London, or even Luton; it is something we must all face. We must demand a better environment, and part of that better environment is engines which are efficient without causing the sound and fury which make people's lives a misery.
I have deliberately tried to make this a wide review of the authority's work because I believe that these are questions that we would like answered.
It is a pity that the views of those of us who represent the ordinary people—the ordinary customer of the airlines—cannot be heard more often in this House, raising the needs and problems of our constituents, because their views are as important to the shaping of future policy of the CAA as are the views of experts.
I hope that the next year of the Civil Aviation Authority will be as successful as the last. It commands the good will of the House, and I hope that its determination in tackling the main priorities will be used to maintain the good work which is worthy of the high traditions of this service.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for raising this important subject in a thoughtful and constructive way. I shall try to avoid covering the points that he has raised.
These debates on aviation and aerospace policy occur all too rarely. I recall that I initiated a debate on 15th December last year.
With due respect to the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, I regret—as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd will regret—that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), is not here, because the three of us were members of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Civil Aviation Bill, where the Minister—then a back bencher—was critical of some of the policies that the Government were putting forward. We could have had a constructive time reminding him of some of his criticisms.

However, I understand that he is in America watching Apollo 17—a project which I was privileged to see a few months ago in the United States. I hope that the Under-Secretary comes back keen on a post-Apollo policy, in which the Government have shown little interest up to now. It is important to this country.
We are considering a policy which was formulated following the report of the Edwards Committee, set up in 1967 to review the needs of British civil aviation in the years ahead. It was presented to Parliament in May 1969 after a wide variety of organisations and people had given their views on the policy of British aviation for the future, including the Air Transport Licensing Board, the Air Registration Board, local authorities and many other organisations, including the Board of Trade.
The new CAA has taken over the functions of some of these and other bodies, and has started work with a considerable degree of zeal. I commend the work of Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the board and staff of the authority, and the way they have tackled their job to give confidence for the future.
I want to raise some points about aspects of Government policy which must concern people in terms of the future work of the authority.
The question remains whether, in this fast-growing industry, in the light of the great technological advances which are taking place, and when other forms of transport are also growing apace, the Edwards Report, produced five years ago, is up to date. We expect that the CAA will have to review the situation as it goes along and take these changes into account.
We want the air transport industry to be kept up to date with current and future needs, but it also needs stability. This is particularly true of the aircraft industry, which is vitally tied up with its future. Yet in all these areas of policy the House and the country lack knowledge of what the Government think—if they think anything about the matters, that I shall raise.
Apart from Concorde and its rôle as a supersonic transport—about which we shall be having a discussion on Monday, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Concorde Aircraft Bill—we know very


little about the Government's work or planning with regard to the provision of Q/STOL; very little about the changes in rail transport, which will have to be taken into account by the CAA in deciding aviation policy, and very little about the Channel Tunnel and the effect that it will have on the air transport industry, although I understand from the Minister for Transport Industries that a preliminary agreement was signed some time ago with the French about that. It could make a big difference to our internal air policy.
We have the possible white elephant of the third London Airport at Maplin, which is due to be operative in the 1980s. In the light of Q/STOL developments, and so on, we wonder whether the long runways and other facilities being built there will be necessary. We also wonder about the way in which the Government intend to encourage airlines to go from Heathrow to Maplin. These are matters that the CAA must take into account. We rather suspect that higher landing charges, and so on, will be the penalty for those that want to stay at Heathrow.
When thinking of the Edwards proposals let us also bear in mind that aircraft take a long time to develop and that it is not always easy to estimate the needs of the next decade. Air travel has grown substantially in the past decade. Even greater technical changes can be expected in the future, but the rate of growth of air traffic has been declining. The ICAO figures show that the rate of growth has been declining when there has been an increase in the capacity, and when fare levels have been such that in an inflationary situation they represent a reduction in the cost to the passenger and the cargo operator.
There has been a change in the pattern of trans-Atlantic markets, and charter traffic has been more than doubled in three years, while scheduled services have still been substantial. In 1971, only 30 per cent. of all scheduled traffic was carried at the full fare. Therefore, a large number of passengers have travelled on scheduled routes at less than full fare, and there have not been good enough loadings.
The anomalies of the charter rules need urgent attention. I understand that the

CAA has predicted that by April, 1973, the matter will have been sorted out. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many abuses, especially with the affinity rules, which need to be sorted out urgently, in view of the arrangements being made by the tour operators for spring and summer traffic next year.
In world air traffic markets there has been very little regulation of fares, tariffs, entry into markets and routes, and there has been a lowering of charter rates, most not through desirable competitiveness but through a lack of proper regulation. The public should be warned that in a market such as air travel the so-called cut prices offered can spell serious trouble, and that regulation within reason is best for all concerned in this kind of competitive situation.
Some may question whether Britain can afford to be in the aircraft industry, both from the point of view of manufacturing and air transport and sometimes, in the absence of any indication from the Government of their thinking on these matters, one wonders whether they themselves believe that Britain has any real rôle to play. This is shown by the lack of confidence among organisations concerned with air travel. The Royal Aeronautical Society, of which I am a member, the Air League, of which I am also a member, and many others, among whom are political friends of the Government, all lack confidence to a serious degree because of the lack of policy statements.
However, there can be no doubt that Britain must be in the business of designing and producing aircraft, because we have the best designers and engineers in the world—and I must declare an interest in this—apart from the fact that the export of aerospace products brings in a good revenue to help our balance of payments. We have shown by the way we run our nationalised airlines that even at times when airlines in other countries are making substantial losses, BOAC, BEA and other publicly-run concerns here can pay their way, even when the Government are hijacking some of the routes to hand over to British Caledonian.
On this point I wonder—and I think the House must wonder—to what extent the Government will make good some of the losses which have been sustained by BOAC in the light of the handing over to


British Caledonian of the routes which it pioneered. One wonders whether, even at this late stage, the Government have any plans to provide compensation to BOAC for the hijacking of the routes that has taken place.
Proper regulation is vital, as airlines have to invest enormous sums in providing for the future. Loading factors, seat capacity, peak traffic demands, charter fares, and so on, are not easily estimated, and they can affect viability. These, amongst others, are themes with which the CAA will have to grapple, and they include the provision of a wide range of other services at each end of the journey, and in between, which the travelling customer expects. At the end of the day the CAA has to ensure that flight safety is assured and that there is a return on the capital invested—and between those two tasks there are enormous problems to be overcome.
In assessing the needs of the future we anticipate the prospect of a merger of BOAC and BEA. In recent days they have been drawn much more closely together in their work.
On the rôle of the second force, the Opposition's policy has been clearly stated. We shall carefully watch the way that force makes a complementary contribution to the future of air travel. The public should not forget that the deliberate policy of the Government to guarantee the prospects not only of survival but of growth of the second force is one that could affect the viability of the State airlines. We said in Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill that the only thing that was assured in the measure was the prosperity of private airlines in competition with the public airlines—and these are matters of grave concern.
Finally, I want to raise one or two points on which I think the House would like the views of the Minister. There are several aspects of public importance apart from those raised by my hon. Friend about noise. The Civil Aviation Act lays down detailed requirements about maximum noise levels, and they are rightly enforced. People living in the areas of our airports, especially at Heathrow, have a right to know that the requirements of the Act are being met but at the same time the House would like to be assured that in taking measures to reduce noise

by throttling down at take-off and peak periods we are not sacrificing safety to minimise noise.
I think that the real answer to the noise problem is not at take-off but at the drawing board stage, and the Government have a good opportunity of helping, by finance and other ways, to encourage manufacturers to eliminate noise early on. The comparative silence of the RB211 engine in the TriStar has shown the public what can be done, and I hope that these results can be extended to other projects.
Air tour operators have already been involved in the preparation of programmes and tours for the coming spring and summer. They are concerned about the effect of their operations, which have already been announced, of VAT and the current prices freeze. They have asked for guidance from the Government, but so far no announcement has been made. They are anxious to know how they will be affected.
Highlands and islands development was dealt with in the Bill. I understand that the chairman of the CAA has been to Scotland to view the facilities for himself, and that he is having consultations with all interested parties about the services in those areas. The authority has been asked to make a recommendation to the Government on the future of the Scottish Highlands and Islands air services by the end of March, 1974. This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
In my area of the East Midlands—Nottinghamshire and Newark, in particular—we have the problem, which arises in many other regions, of getting to and from regional airports to travel to London. There are problems of access, and there is competition from the railways. It is quicker to travel from city centre to city centre by rail on the Manchester electrified service than to travel by air, and the rail fares are more moderate. That is another aspect on which the authority must have guidance from the Government.
The authority has 6,000 employees, located from the Isles of Scilly to Shetland. Is it not possible to move the headquarters from central London into areas which are less congested?
I am concerned, as are others, about the role of women pilots. There are not many of them in the public airlines. There is the strange idea that women marry, have children and leave the service. Men also marry and have children, yet they are not penalised. One wonders whether women go to the trouble of getting trained, at some cost to themselves and to the airlines, and acquiring a good earning capacity as pilots, only to give it all up for a more domestic rôle. These matters are not looked at in the same way for both sexes.
The Labour Party has published a document dealing with discrimination on grounds of sex. A stewardess has to retire at 36 but a steward can continue working until his 50s. The chairman of one airline told me in a letter that a lower retirement age for stewardesses was not uncommon in other airlines and recognises the special style of cabin service which passengers expect. A stewardess of 37—a year over the age limit—might provide the style of cabin service that I and many others would prefer to that provided by a steward of 52, but that is a matter of choice. We should disregard the sex angle and look to the suitability of the person wanting to do the job. There must be many women who, if allowed to remain as stewardesses at the age of 36, could still give good service with all the charm and talent that we have come to expect from our stewardesses. This is a matter of making the best use of our manpower and womanpower and disregarding some of the other factors which too often come into account with regard to discrimination.
Air piracy is a matter of grave concern. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made a public announcement on this subject recently, in which he said that the airlines of the world must be quaking at the possible outcome of threatened hijacking and air piracy continuing. He said that it had become a matter of urgency for the Government to introduce legislation to ratify the Montreal Convention, which is already a year old.
We all know of the steps being taken to screen baggage and search passengers, and so on. They must be tightened up. I went to Brussels on Sunday and returned on Tuesday, and I went through the barriers at both ends without being

searched. The officials had no reason to trust me; they did not know who I was. No one else was subjected to any checks. This is a matter of great concern, which could affect traffic in the future. I appreciate that the Government are giving £1 million or so to the airlines to help combat these problems, but it is a matter of urgency that we make more progress in guaranteeing safety.
With regard to the West London Air Terminal, the change in facilities there—the proposal to book in not there but at Heathrow—has been viewed with some concern by many members of the travelling public. I wonder whether the CAA and the Government would look at this matter again.
Finally, with regard to the duty-free concessions that are now available, which I questioned in the House a week or so ago, one fears that with our entry into the Common Market this concession might be lost. It is greatly valued by many travellers, not only in this country but all over the world. It brings a considerable return to our airlines and helps their profitability by offsetting some losses.
With the benefits that we have had from this brief debate, on the whole we can look forward to the expansion of air travel services and the work of the CAA in this country in the next decade. That work and the importance of the subject justifies an opportunity for the House to debate this matter at a more reasonable time of the day.

2.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I want immediately to respond to the extremely sensible and reasonable way in which the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), and to what can only be described as a massive host of questions from the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop).
My colleague at the Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), is extremely sorry that he cannot be present today. I am an inadequate substitute for him, although my interest in the aviation industry is fairly well known.
This is the first general discussion that we have had on the activities of the Civil


Aviation Authority since it assumed its functions on 1st April this year, and it is sensible that it should have been conducted in such a manner. Hon. Members will remember the debates on the Civil Aviation Act last March and on the policy guidance which the Government, with the approval of the House, have given to the authority. My outstanding impression of those debates, some of which I attended and some of which I read in HANSARD, was the general approval from both sides of the House regarding the creation of the authority as an important and, indeed, a welcome innovation in public authority organisation. Both sides were also well aware of the considerable size of the task that we were giving to the authority.
Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I am pleased to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd in welcoming the way in which the authority has come to grips with the problem. I pay tribute to John Boyd-Carpenter, as we know him—although he is now in another place—who is carrying out his duties as chairman with ability and throwing himself into his responsibilities with all the skill and vigour that we have grown to expect of him.
I want to say a few words about the organisation. The authority inherited functions from my Department, the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Air Registration Board. All have had to be welded together. For example, the operational and safety regulations which used to be carried out by my Department and the constructional regulations of the ARB—both important elements of safety—are now controlled by the same member of the authority.
Let me say a word or two about the question of safety, because it is of major concern to many people in the country and it has been raised by both hon. Members in this debate. The authority is deeply conscious of its obligations to further safety in all areas of civil aviation. The United Kingdom's safety record in the public transport and general aviation sectors has shown steady and sustained improvement over a number of years, and it will be the aim of the authority, without complacency, to maintain that trend.
Further improvement to an already good safety record, in spite of the tragic accident which is now being inquired

into, must call for persistent effort not only by the authority but by those concerned with safety in the aviation industry. The authority is hopeful that in its safety task it will be well served by the unification within its structure, for the first time, of those elements responsible for standards of air traffic control, operation and airworthiness, safety and operating route licences. All these are an advance in the ability to be able to ensure an increasing degree of safety.
A question has been asked about a staff problem. The staff problems of any airline are subject to the surveillance of the authority. The staff have to obey the safety rules and the operating procedures. I cannot comment—it would be wrong of me to do so—on the Trident inquiry which is in progress, but we have no indication in general that there has been any diminution in air safety standards. Above everything else, the public require to know and to be assured that everything humanly possible is being done to maintain safety at its highest pitch.
The policy aspects of the authority, in some instances, used to be the responsibility of my Department. The licensing functions of the Air Transport Licensing Board have similarly been brought together. These are perhaps obvious examples of the possibilities that the creation of the authority has allowed to be brought about.
In the longer term the changes we shall see may run deeper. The organisation which the authority inherited was basically governmentally geared to meet the needs of Ministers and the Department. The authority will still have responsibilities to both, but it is not subject to detailed parliamentary control. However, it is required to operate with more regard to commercial standards and criteria than is possible or desirable for a Government Department. That change in attitude is a challenge to all members of the authority. It is a compliment to the adaptability of the staff that no one doubts that they will be able to meet it.
Despite these internal preoccupations, the authority has in the eight months in which it has been functioning made a significant impact on both the domestic and the international civil aviation scene. It has finalised its strategy in the development of the country's air traffic control system over the next few years. That


will involve the expenditure of some £25 million—about four-fifths of it being spent in this country. It will include a computer system for the new Scottish air traffic control centre, in addition to the extension to the London centre. Although there are no Scottish hon. Members present I am certain that they will be delighted to know that that can be confirmed.
The major public impact of the authority has been in international air services. The authority has developed and brought almost to fruition the work which it inherited from my Department on the advanced booking charter. This is a subject with many international aspects which have remained the responsibility of my Department. Consequently, it is a subject on which the authority and my Department have collaborated closely. The result of that collaboration is that European Governments have agreed with those of the United States and Canada to introduce on 1st April new, simple and liberal charter rules based on the principle that passengers who are prepared to commit themselves at least three months in advance should be able to enjoy the benefits of cheaper air transport. These rules will take effect initially on routes between the United Kingdom and Canada, the United States and the Caribbean area. The authority will monitor closely the working of the new scheme and will not hesitate to propose changes if it is thought that they are desirable. The new scheme should do away with all the distasteful and at times illegal activities to which the present affinity group system has given rise.
The authority is now considering with my Department the possible extension of this sort of arrangement to other intercontinental routes. If they succeed on the North Atlantic I believe that they are bound to spread. I believe that that would be welcomed, and I think that it is important.
Closely connected with the new charter rules is the licensing of air travel organisers, to which the hon. Members for Pontypridd and Newark referred. Hon. Members will recall that Section 26 of the 1971 Act gives the authority power to regulate the provision of accommodation

in aircraft. The guidelines on which the authority is expected to use that power are contained in paragraph 24 of the policy guidance. This emphasises that the powers are designed to ensure that only those who act within the rules and who have adequate resources or financial arrangements shall engage in the organising and the wholesaleing of air travel.
I am sure that that is right. I do not believe that there could be any defence of firms which are doubtful financially being licensed, so that the public could be taken in, pay their money and then find their travel or their holiday ruined because the firm has not the financial resources to live up to what is desired, and to its financial promises. This should reduce the risk that some passengers have faced that the company with which they have booked their holiday has gone out of business and left them stranded.
I doubt whether anything can wholly remove such risks absolutely, but I believe that the authority's scheme, details of which it announced recently, will go a good way towards that end. I emphasise that the authority should not use its power to regulate competition and that its concern should be confined to the operation of air services.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd raised a point concerning British Caledonian, and paragraph 17 of the guidance. Continuing preference for the second force airline is still necessary, especially during its formative years, if it is to achieve a sound development. This was made clear in the Secretary of State's statement on 3rd August 1970, and it remains Government policy. But paragraph 17 is carefully worded so as to make it clear that these measures of preference are neither automatic nor complete; nor are they necessarily permanent. On non-scheduled flights, for example, the preference comes in only in those sectors of the market where the number of airlines, or the capacity, needs to be restricted—and only for as long as that continues.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will recognise from the guidance and the Act that the Government are committed to the survival of the second force airline. In these circumstances commercial viability is one of the obligations of the Government, even at the expense of other services, such as BEA and BOAC. This


means that the second force airline must be kept going whatever the consequences to the other two. This is where there is a great measure of disagreement.

Mr. Emery: It would be absurd of any Government to consider a second force in competition and expect investment to be placed in it without a fair assurance that it will be given the necessary incentives and support to be successful. We would be wasting everyone's time and effort if that were the case. The action that the Government have taken is not only proper but adequate. As I have pointed out, the paragraph 17 support is not necessarily permanent in all its aspects.
I now turn to the question of the grant that the authority receives from the Government, which is designed to meet the authority's deficit on revenue account. The estimate put to the House earlier in the year was £24 million. We recognised at that time that the figure did not include provision for a number of matters then under discussion. An estimate has been placed before the House for a further £4 million.
The main items that the extra provision is designed to cover are varied. The largest is the payment of superannuation contributions for the civil servants seconded to the authority. Because they were civil servants there was at first some doubt whether their superannuation payments would be a charge to their department or to the authority. This has now been settled. A further item is for insurance premiums. The authority, not being a part of the Crown, insures its risks on the market, whereas the Department's risks were, like all Government risks, carried. A further sum is accounted for by pay awards made during 1972.
Turning to the hon. Member for Newark, who spoke particularly about women pilots, I want to tell a story, which illustrates my considerable support for lady pilots, concerning the Air Transport Auxiliary, which existed during the war. There was one famous lady pilot—Mrs. Alder Smith—who was delivering Wellingtons and Spitfires around the airfields. Like all members of the RAF she had to undergo a medical examination every six months. After

doing this for two years she went for her normal medical examination and the doctor looked surprised and said: "You are pregnant." Mrs. Smith said to the doctor: "What is wrong with a lady pilot continuing to fly when she is pregnant? Show me any King's Regulation or Air Ministry Order which says that pregnant ladies may not fly." For another four weeks she went on flying successfully, delivering Wellingtons around RAF stations, until finally the daily written orders came up and said that under Regulation 7244 she was grounded. She charged to K.R.'s and found that it said that lady members of Air Transport Auxiliary should not carry passengers.
The ability of women in the air during the war was demonstrated with the greatest courage, and the authority might, for my benefit, look at this to ensure that there is no real discrimination against women who wish to continue flying.
The question of stewardesses retiring at the age of 36 is a matter for the rules of individual airlines. I should think that it applies more than anything else because of the wishes of people who prefer to see a pretty young girl serving rather than somebody older. We have to look at ourselves rather than the airlines when these regulations are made.
On the question of noise, my right hon. Friend referred in the House only a few weeks ago to the development in quiet engines. The RB211 and its successor will mean a substantial reduction in the area of noise disturbance and noise levels. This we welcome.
I am glad that the question of the location of the CAA headquarters was raised. I take the authority's point about that. The headquarters at the Twickenham site turned out to be unsuitable. The CAA has its own operational requirements to meet. It has to maintain efficiency, but I can assure the House that the issue is still under discussion with the CAA. No decision has yet been taken, and the Government's policy is to ensure dispersal of work from the London area. One hopes that there is an opportunity to carry that through.
The West London Air Terminal was mentioned. Hon. Members may have missed a statement by my noble Friend


in another place in October to the effect that the closure of the handling facilities at the terminal would not take place during 1973. I cannot go further than that tonight.
I turn finally to aviation security. The whole world condemns and regards with abhorrence the international anarchy that terrorism on aircraft brings about. Security against hijacking and other acts of violence directed against civil aviation is a matter about which the Government maintain the closest liaison with all involved, including the CAA.
Our policy has three main objectives. The first is to ensure that the necessary organisation for the airlines, the airport authorities and the CAA is available and that procedures are developed to combat any possible acts of violence and allow a response to any incident involving the United Kingdom. The second is to ensure that appropriate and effective measures are taken at airports and by the airlines. The third is to support and contribute to the development of an effective and widely acceptable international legal framework to deal with hijacking and other acts of violence against civil aviation.
I have taken part in debates at the Council of Europe when I have tried to push the British Government's view and to get agreement among at least the European nations about more stringent methods. The Government provide advice and guidance—and, in certain circumstances, financial assistance—about measures which may be taken to combat threats to civil aviation. But the implementation of security measures and responsibility for the security of their property are matters for the operators. We cannot take responsibility for the property of airlines, the airport authorities or the CAA.

Mr. John: No one suggests that the Government should do so, but where there is a conflict between airport security and money—as is plainly the case at some local authority airports—the Government should make a grant to the local authority to enable it to meet its security obligations.

Mr. Emery: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's view. I think that he referred especially to Aldergrove. The

Government are conscious of the position there, but I must leave it at that.
The CAA has no wider responsibility for aviation security than the United Kingdom, but it has an important role because of its responsibilities for the protection of its own installations, facilities and equipment. There is thus a considerable difficulty about the interlocking of duties.
This has been a worthwhile debate. I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Member if there is any observation of his that I have not answered. I hope that the debate will have been useful to people outside the House as well as to those hon. Members who have taken part.

KENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

3.10 a.m.

Mr. Roger White: I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate this debate, albeit at this late hour, and I am both grateful and pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in his place on the Front Bench. He has already earned for himself a considerable reputation in the local government world.
I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972, which has been laid before the House and is to receive its approval before 31st December, 1972. I shall refer in particular to page 24, part 22, concerning districts 2 and 3. This order follows Report No. 1 of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, presented to the House by the Secretary of State in November.
My constituency includes the present urban district of Northfleet, the borough of Gravesend and the Strood rural district, and it is the effect upon the latter which has caused me to raise the subject of the Boundary Commission's proposals.
In addition to the enormous post which I have received from the rural district council, from the parish councils and from hundreds of individuals, I have received protests from other local authorities placed in a position similar to that of my own. One of the most common criticisms concerns the method adopted by the Government in presenting important changes without an opportunity for the


House to debate the findings of the Boundary Commission's Report No. 1, especially in view of the great weight of public opinion involved in these matters.
We saw a precedent established recently following the Roskill Report. That report was debated both here and in the other place, and the outcome of those debates, with the support of public opinion, was that the Government were persuaded to depart from the recommendation of Cublington as the site for the third London airport and to decide on Maplin. It was said then, and has been said since, that that was a victory for public opinion and its expression here in Parliament.
The proposals made by Strood Rural District Council were of such a nature that Kent County Council went on record as saying that it recognised that the district council had a strong case, backed by public opinion. A local meeting was therefore convened in Rochester on 5th September, under the chairmanship of Sir Edmund Compton. By all accounts, it appeared that Strood Rural District Council had submitted an extremely able and strong case, and many people thought that the local meeting could only confirm the views already expressed by public opinion. The shock waves which have resulted from the Boundary Commission's Report, therefore, have been manifest in my postbag, in deputations and in protests in the local Press and over the local radio.
The chairman of the Strood Rural District Council, on behalf of that authority, sent to the Secretary of State a resolution dated 28th November 1972, in these terms:
We, being the Chairman and elected Members of the Strood Rural District Council, strongly urge the Secretary of State for the Environment closely to re-examine all the evidence submitted by this Authority to the Boundary Commission before placing before Parliament a Statutory Instrument giving effect to the Boundary Commission's proposals to establish Non-Metropolitan District Councils, particularly with regard to Kent Districts Nos. 2 and 3.
The District Council is firmly of opinion that a re-examination of the evidence will establish the fact that the proposals to unite Strood urban area of Rocheser with the whole of the Strood rural district fully accords with the Government's White Paper, particularly paragraph 33 thereof, and the Guide Lines issued by the Department of the Environment to the Boundary Commission, and is accepted

by 16 Parish Councils and Gravesend Borough Council and Northfleet Urban District Council.
Further, the District Council wishes the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that apart from the fact that the Proposals meet the criteria of the White Paper and the Guide Lines, the Commission took due note of public opinion which forcibly endorsed the District Council's representations. Also in this connection the District Council wishes to draw attention to the fact that when the draft proposals of the Boundary Commission were submitted the Kent County Council stated that, whilst they did not consider the District Council's proposals to be any better than the Draft Proposals, they acknowledged the fact that the District Council had an extremely strong case supported by public opinion. Therefore, in view of the foregoing and the wish of the Government to establish viable local government units easily recognisable and understood by the electorate at large, and the fact that the district council's proposals fully accord with the Government's wishes, the Secretary of State should re-examine the evidence as requested before presenting the findings to Parliament.
That is signed by the chairman of that council. The rural district council claimed that these proposals might meet the criteria of the White Paper and the guidelines confirmed by the many publications on the subject of local government reform prior to and after the draft proposals were made.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the White Paper, Command 4584, published in February, 1971. Paragraph 8, on page 6, says that
A vigorous local democracy means that authorities must be given real functions—with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls.
The final sentence contained in that paragraph is important. It states:
And, above all else a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible.
On page 10 of the same Command Paper, the last sentence of paragraph 33, relating to areas outside the metropolitan counties, states:
The Government are anxious, in this structure, to ensure that the special interests of rural areas are not overshadowed.
In Circular 58/71 dated 22nd July 1971, the annex very clearly indicates, in paragraphs 2 and 3, the population, the county patterns of districts, and the identity of towns. Paragraph 2 says:
Except in sparsely populated areas the aim should be to define districts with current populationally generally within the range of about


75,000/100,000. These figures are in no sense absolute limits: some districts will be larger or smaller, according to local circumstances; but regard should be had to the desirability of producing in each county a pattern of districts which are broadly comparable in population and conducive to effective and convenient local government throughout the county as a whole.
Paragraph 3 reads:
The identity of large town should be maintained. The whole designated area of a new town or the whole of an area defined for town development should ordinarily fall within one new district.
On the last page of this circular, regarding consultations, paragraph 8 states that
The Commission should consider suggestions and proposals put to them by local authorities and other persons and bodies for the pattern of districts in each county, and should then make draft proposals. These should be published as a basis for the fullest practicable consultation with the existing authorities and so that, when formulating their final recommendations, the Commission can also have regard to any further representations to and representations from members of the public.
The Strood Rural District Council proposals, following the criteria set out and the guidelines, suggested three district councils. These differ from those set out in the draft proposals but they represent, in the submission of the rural district council, a sensible and balanced scheme for the rural area in the county of Kent. They have set out three new district councils.
The first would be the Gravesend Metropolitan Borough and Northfleet urban district, with a total population of 80,723.
The second proposal, opposed by the Strood Rural District Council, was that Strood should comprise Strood Rural District Council, Rochester Metropolitan Borough and that part of Strood lying to the west of the River Medway, with a total population of 71,447.
The third district council would have been that of the Rochester Metropolitan Borough, lying to the east of the River Medway, and Chatham Metropolitan Borough, with a population of 82,957.
The population of the first and last areas would be completely within the norm of the guidelines. Certainly the second one, involving Strood rural district with the urban area of Strood, would

be very close to the norm. This pattern of local authorities would allow for expansion by further development for a considerable number of years without the populations becoming too large. The reason for this is that the area of the Medway is included in the strategy for the South East as a district in which moderate development should take place, but already in the area considerable development is being permitted in the rural part, certainly along the Medway and that part of the Thames near the Isle of Grain. Development is also taking place in the Walderslade area of Chatham.
The new district council envisaged by the rural district council would create a pattern of community life and ensure the effective operation of local government services because administrative centres in all three areas could be conveniently situated and easily accessible to the populations of the districts.
This alternative is completely in accord with the wishes of the local inhabitants of the Strood rural area and the Strood urban area of Rochester. At the moment there is considerable confusion among people in the locality as to the boundaries of the Strood urban area of Rochester, and the rural council. The three new districts would create a proper balance of interest, in accordance with Government policy.
There would also be a reasonable distribution of rateable value, although it is realised that a new Strood rural district council would have a greater rateable value, but this would be offset by the new industry brought in and the fact that a larger area would have to be administered, involving many larger villages, where facilities for leisure, and so on, would be sought.
Area No. 1, consisting of Gravesend Metropolitan Area and Northfleet Urban District Council, would realise a rateable value of £44 per head. The new Strood rural district area, with Strood urban, would realise £55 per head, and that of Rochester and Chatham metropolitan boroughs would realise £42. I realise that there is a discrepancy of about £13 between the area suggested by Strood rural and that of the new area for Rochester and Chatham, but there is to be GLC overspill in that area of between 1,200 and 1,500. The existing offices, at


Frindsbury Hill, of the rural district council accommodate all departments involved in local government and are within easy reach of the council's works depot, and there are plenty of facilities that can be expanded in the event of a larger area being created.
Apart from these proposals, the rural district council conducted a referendum and its findings were published in June of this year. Sixty per cent. of the local electorate responded to a postal ballot—a remarkable poll, especially in local government. Of those who voted, 97 per cent. were in favour of the Strood Rural Council proposals. Furthermore, a Gallup Poll conducted in Strood urban area showed strong support for a link with the Strood rural hinterland. These two tests are commendable and far reaching.
The local inquiry was held at Rochester on 5th September, and its observations and findings are to be found on pages 147–150 of the Boundary Commission No. 1 Report. To say that that report is resented by Strood Rural District Council is a polite understatement. In the first place, no mention is made of the referendum or the Gallup Poll, other than an almost passing reference on page 147 to a local campaign organised by Strood Rural District Council in opposition to the proposed splitting. No mention is made of the strong representations by the 16 parish councils.
Particular offence is taken to paragraph 21:
They also noted a report by the Commissioners who visited the area that the part of Rochester MB west of the River Medway appeared to have none of the characteristics of a separate town.
I have no idea where the commissioners went when they visited that part of Strood urban, but they could not have seen the fine modern shopping centre, comprising large supermarkets, such as Fine Fare, Co-op, Tesco, two large department stores, a modern Woolworth's and Barclays, National Westminster, Lloyds, Midland and Trustee Savings Banks. In addition, there are a large post office, hardware stores, chemists, garages, fruit and vegetable shops, newsagents, bakers, jewellers, wine merchants, television rental, estate agents, butchers, radio and television, restaurants, hair-

dressers, fish shops and many other types of shops and stores. Strood has its own railway station, car parks and public houses.
Again in paragraph 21 there is reference to the fact that no evidence was adduced to refute the point made by the county council about the administrative, planning and economic needs of the area. It has been suggested that the planning witness for the county who followed the case presented by Strood Rural Council was using evidence based upon information gained in 1968, whereas, in the Gallup Poll conducted in 1972, respondents were asked about the use of local facilities. Again, local people made their feelings clear about their own rural area. The poll said that—local countryside and public libraries emerged as the two amenities most used, and local shopping patterns were established for household goods and larger commodities. More than seven out of 10 households do their household shopping in Strood, and fewer than one in 10 go to Rochester.
This inquiry has caused an enormous amount of resentment, which can be summed up in some ways by the Luddesdown Parish Council, which wrote to my right hon. Friend on 25th November. In that letter the council said:
The Council and residents of this parish are appalled by the decision of the Boundary Commission as published in Circular 116/72 of November 21 (a copy of which was not supplied to the council), since it recommends precisely the grouping (five rural parishes including Luddesdown with Gravesend and Northfleet and the remainder of the Strood Rural District with Rochester and Chatham) that was unanimously rejected by local authorities at the local inquiry held at Rochester by Sir Edmund Compton.
At that meeting he specifically asked: 'Can I take it that no one favours this proposal?' And no one did. Gravesend and Northfleet had already gone on public record as saying that they did not want the five rural parishes. The five parishes, by council and public meeting resolution and referendum, had made their own rejection of this proposal so overwhelmingly clear that it seemed unanswerable. Among other things, it would have produced in the new authority a majority of urban to rural population of more than five to one—the highest in Kent.
In addition, Frindsbury Extra Parish Council, High Halstow Parish Council, in its letter of 29th November, Cobham Parish Council, in its letter of 25th November, and Meopham Parish Council, in a letter that I received at the House this


evening, indicate the strong resentment of these parish councils towards the Boundary Commission proposals. Meopham says:
This Meopham Parish Council deplores the proposal made by the Local Government Boundary Commission, whereby the Strood Rural District is to be carved up and the Parish of Meopham annexed to Gravesend. This proposal has been made in the face of and completely at variance with the wishes of the majority of Meopham Parishioners.
I have had many letters from constituents, but this quotation from one sums up the average person's feelings on the subject:
The injustice of the Commission's decision is a complete and utter travesty of democratic principle as the voice of the people appears to have been disregarded …
That is really the crux of the argument. The Government set out, again and again, through circulars and White Papers, the need for local opinion to be taken into account. I do not think that any other local authority has taken more trouble than has Strood Rural District Council to inquire about the feelings of the people in its district. There is therefore a feeling of bewilderment among people who live in an expanding and prosperous area, both along the Thames and the Medway, where there are great opportunities for further expansion.
Already a second new power station has been started on the Isle of Grain, and we await the outcome of a public inquiry about another refinery at Cliffe. Yet another inquiry concerns the rural and parish councils' feelings for the environment in the case of a proposal to expand an existing cement works.
In addition, we have in the area agriculture and horticulture, and six railway stations through which large numbers of residents commute daily to London.
These people wish to have their views heard and understood. I have been told that democracy must be seen to work. I therefore call upon my right hon. Friend to advise withdrawal of districts 2 and 3, as proposed, for a further review. In doing so they will earn not only gratitude but respect from these people.

3.32 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I do not complain about my hon. Friend's ingenuity, initiative, and—I suppose I

should say—agility in jumping the gun, in that in a few days' time the House will debate the order to which he has referred, and the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, Number 1, to which he has also referred. That report was laid before Parliament on 21st November, and the Secretary of State laid the draft order to give effect to the recommendations of the commission on 22nd November.
This order will soon be debated in both houses. From the fact that the order seeking to carry out the recommendations in full was laid on the day following that on which the report was published, it will be obvious that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has accepted absolutely the commission's recommendations. I am sure that anyone who reads them will be convinced that they are sound as a whole, and that it would be folly to try to do again the work which the high-powered, independent commission has spent the last year or so doing, and doing so thoroughly and well.
Going back over that year, the appointment of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a body designate was announced to this House on 25th November 1971, shortly after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, and it was charged with three tasks—to consider the proposals made by local authorities and others for a new pattern of districts in the English non-metropolitan councils; to prepare and publish draft proposals for such districts as a basis for consultation, and to recommend a pattern of districts to the Secretary of State in the light of all the representations in response to the draft proposals.
All this was to be done in the light of the general objective of the Government's proposals for reform of local government and in accordance with guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment.
Moveover, it had to be done within a time scale consonant with the progress of the Local Government Bill, so that the final report could be submitted to the Secretary of State as soon as possible after Royal Assent had been given to the Bill.
Sir Edmund Compton was appointed chairman of the commission, and he was


assisted by six commissioners, all eminent in their own field. The commission got down to its task with great energy and published its draft proposals as long ago as 26th April this year. It was greatly helped in that task by the existing local authorities, which had responded enthusiastically to the invitation given in July, 1971, to start the whole process by making their own recommendations to the commission. The commission gave full consideration not only to those recommendations but also to the reactions of local authorities to its draft proposals.
The commission then made a substantial number of changes in the draft proposals, and finally submitted its report to my right hon. and learned Friend on 2nd November. The report is a monument to the diligence and attention to detail of the commission, as well as to its balanced approach. The commission has well earned the thanks, the praise and the congratulations of everyone concerned with local government reform.
Representations from nearly all local authorities and from about 2,500 other bodies or individuals were received by the commission before it prepared its draft proposals. It says in its report that those representations were of great assistance. Later in its report it says that it received over 28,000 written representations in response to the draft proposals, counting petitions as single representations, although it records that it took due note of the size of each petition.
It tells us, further, that some 73 per cent. of local authorities raised no objection to the draft proposals. It is clear, therefore, that local wishes were well in its mind.
After considering the response to the draft proposals, it made recommendations for the new districts. It was an astonishing achievement that by this method it formed 953 existing local authorities into 296 new districts. Only about half a dozen complaints of substance have come to me since the final report was published and laid before Parliament.
I said just now that between the draft and the final proposals the commission made substantial alterations. There were substantial modifications to 43 of the districts.
These facts show that the commission is not only a responsible body but a responsive and flexible one. Its flexibility and responsiveness to public opinion were in no way impaired by the guidelines laid down for it by the Secretary of State, but the report has some relevant comment on those guidelines. It makes the point that it was given them without any indication of priority, and that therefore it did not infer any particular order in which it should treat them. It preferred, rather, to strike a balance between them. However, there is no doubt that it found the guidelines basic to its work—the population parameters, the regard to local wishes, the pattern of community life, the effective operation of local government services, and the regard for the Government's objectives for reform.
The commission discovered that these guidelines did not necessarily conflict but, rather, were complementary. The commission had to put its own interpretation on these guidelines. For example—and this is relevant to the case that my hon. Friend has put before the House today—paying regard to local wishes meant to the commission not only those expressed in one locality, but those expressed in neighbouring localities and in the authority within which a district authority might be comprised—that is to say, the wishes of the county as well as of the existing local county districts.
A further indication of the commission's sensitivity to the importance of the issues involved, both locally and nationally, is given by its local consultations. My hon. Friend mentioned how the matter had worked out in the case of districts Nos. 2 and 3 in Kent—those districts with which he is particularly concerned. The commission conducted 16 meetings with representatives of local authorities in the areas where it required evidence. Local Members of Parliament were invited to attend these meetings and the Press was present at all of them.
Hon. Members for areas where meetings were held will know that these meetings received extensive coverage in the local Press and that the commission gave as full an opportunity as possible to the authorities to express their views and put their case, and I am sure that Strood rural district put its case very fully before the commission at the meeting that was arranged and held at Rochester on 5th September 1972.
In fact, in regard to these meetings the Local Government Chronicle, a very informed and alert watchdog for the interests of local government, said:
Considerable stress was laid on probing questions … and on discussion and comment through the chair in an effort to clarify the evidence and establish the facts",
Later, the article said:
The authorities appeared to be well content with the opportunity given to them. …
Those quotations relate specifically to the meeting at which Strood was under consideration—that is, the meeting on 5th September 1972. The meeting had come about, as my hon. Friend said, because of the authorities, particularly the county council, saying that they thought that Strood had put forward a case which deserved argument and inquiry, but it turned out at the meeting itself that Kent County Council spoke in support not of Strood Rural District Council's case but of the commission's draft proposals.
The meeting was charged, as it were, by the commission to consider three alternatives for the several districts—Gravesend, Northfleet, Strood, Chatham and Rochester—and these, as appears from the report, were all fully discussed. The particular points which my hon. Friend raised are covered in the report. My hon. Friend said that at one stage Kent County Council had supported Strood rural district in wanting a separate district, but there appears in the report this statement concerning the meeting held in September 1972:
Kent County Council spoke in support of the draft proposals. They suggested that as the strategic planning authority they would not wish to abandon the Green Belt between the Thames-side and Medway towns but that the long-term planning needs of the area would best be served by the creation of Draft New Districts 2 and 3.
The report goes on:
No evidence was adduced to refute the points made by the County Council about the planning, administrative and economic needs of the area.
The commission's decision on Kent districts and the process by which it reached that decision accord with the high standards of investigation and analysis which the commission has set itself all through these inquiries.
The report records that Kent County Council originally proposed the division of the county into either 13 or 14 districts. At the outset the commission opted for the proposal containing the greater number of districts as the basis for its consideration. The report records that this pattern had a wide measure of support amongst most of the local authorities concerned. The draft proposals published by the commission, based on that 14-district plan—with a slight alteration where it was felt that existing districts would be split unnecessarily—received a considerable amount of support. The response to the draft proposals revealed quite firm and nearly unanimous expressions of local opinion in favour of the two changes, both of which divided local authorities. In the Dartford rural district and the Thanet area—two districts near to that with which my hon. Friend is concerned—representations were made to the commission and substantial alterations were made. The commission did not shut its ears to those representations.
In other areas representations were made contrary to the draft proposals. The commission could not support those representations, and upheld the draft proposals. In the areas of districts 2 and 3, which contain Chatham, Gravesend, Rochester, Northfleet rural district and Strood rural district, the commission was faced with the large, well-mounted campaign of Strood rural district to persuade it to recommend three districts rather than two. Strood Rural District Council was the moving force in pressing for a separate district for Strood, but that district could be formed only by taking that part of Rochester that is known as Strood lying west of the River Medway. Without that part of Rochester the figures would have been insufficient to give a viable district.
The views of the other authorities concerned were widely at variance, and the commission decided that this issue should be thrashed out at the local meeting that I have mentioned. It convened that local meeting, with the results that I have tried to describe from its report. The report records both the differences revealed at the meeting and the fact that no one present denied that people living in the area of Strood rural district used either Gravesend—if they lived to the west of


the area—or Chatham and Rochester—if they lived to the east of the area—for services generally.
The report also records the unopposed evidence given by the county council about administrative and planning advantages of the district pattern proposed by the commission. Finally, it records that the commissioners who conducted the meeting went and looked for themselves at the area of Rochester west of the River Medway to see whether the points made at the meeting were valid.
My hon. Friend criticised the statement in the report on this visit, but I call his attention to the fact that the report does not say that the commissioners said that there was no town there. What the report of the commissioners who visited the area says is that they noted that the part of Rochester west of the River Medway appeared to have none of the characteristics of a separate town. I read from that that they concluded that this part of Rochester called Strood was part of the city of Rochester and really did not have the characteristics of a separate town.

Mr. White: That part of Rochester known as Strood is on the other side of a river, and separated from Rochester by that river, so it is a separate town.

Mr. Page: It is recorded in the report that the city of Rochester had argued that the city had extended by natural growth to the west of the River Medway since mediaeval times and that the urban area known as Strood had been part of the borough for many years before the formation of Strood rural district. Strood rural district can make its claim to be a separate district only by taking that part of the city which is recorded as having been a part of Rochester since mediaeval times.
In my view, the procedure adopted by the commission combined a full opportunity for local opinion to be stated with a full probing of public opinion and all the relevant objective considerations. As a result, the commission concluded that in this case its draft proposals for the area should stand.
I have gone into this matter in some detail tonight because of the points put forward by my hon. Friend. The appointment of a commission of this sort to go into the matter in such detail over a

period of a year—a commission which took representations from all local authorities concerned, produced draft proposals, then held a local inquiry at which everyone could put their case, and then produced a final report—seems a far better way of discussing and deciding this matter than trying to go over it again in this House.
I should have thought it quite right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, having appointed this commission to do the job, to say that we should accept what it recommends—not because the commission is dictating but because it has held inquiries and heard the local voice. The commission's procedure in this case is an example of the way in which it responded flexibly to the situations with which it had to cope. It looked at all situations in a sensible light, within the guidelines given to it, balanced all those considerations, and produced solutions commanding a wide measure of support.
Kent provides us with an excellent example of the full range of the commission's general approach, and I am sure that the House would be unwise to seek to extract any one item from its comprehensive recommendations to the Secretary of State.

INDUSTRIAL NOISE

3.55 a.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Under the Vote on Account, Class IV, Vote 11, for the Department of Employment, I have chosen to speak on industrial noise because in April this year the Department produced a code of practice for reducing exposure of employed persons to noise. It was the first time that such a code had been produced for this country. However, since the production of the code, apart from a certain number of parliamentary Questions little or nothing has been said in this place or elsewhere about how effective the code has been in encouraging industry to put its house in order, at least in noise terms, and although only eight months have elapsed since the production of the code, perhaps it is time to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State whether he can give a progress report on the implementation of the code and shed some light on the future publications which


may come from his Department since these are referred to in parts of the code.
In his foreword, on page 1 of the code, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) says:
I regard the publication of the code as the first important step in the prevention of loss of hearing due to noise at work".
The words "the first important step" suggests that the Department has other steps in mind. Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is whether he can shed some light on what those other steps might be and say how much the Department intends to spend on producing whatever it has in mind.
In order to reinforce those words in the foreword, I come to the introduction of the code. Page 4 describes the code as being specifically about the reduction of noise exposure of employed persons and then points out:
It does not include advice to machinery manufacturers which will be covered separately or on the medical management of noise-exposed personnel, or on the place of audiometry".
That again suggests that the intention is to publish in the near future documents covering those separate subjects. Can my hon. Friend state what those publications may be? I should like to touch on the question of the Department's possible priorities for expenditure and to consider whether the Department should be considering legislation as part of its anti-noise package.
No one to whom I have spoken has anything but praise for the code of practice. It is felt to be a badly needed first step. But, at the same time, most of that praise is qualified and perhaps the words of one journalist will give my hon. Friend the flavour of the qualification. He described it as doing
little more than give some authority to the standards set out in 'Noise and the Worker' published by the then Ministry of Labour in June 1963.
In one way it is not as good as "Noise and the Worker", because that publication said, on page 7:
It is generally agreed that if workers are exposed for eight hours a day, five days a weeks, to a continuous, steady noise of 85 decibels or more in the speech range of frequency"—
that is, 500 to 4,000 cycles per second—
it is desirable to introduce a programme of noise reduction or hearing conservation".
The figure was 85 decibels in 1963.
In 1972, nine years later, the code of practice, at page 6, says:
If exposure is continued for eight hours in any one day, and is to be a reasonably steady sound, the sound level should not exceed 90 decibels A.
The A, of course, means A-weighting.
In fact, we are accepting a higher noise level nine years later than we appeared to be willing to accept in 1963. I do not know why there should have been that slippage of noise levels. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, each successive three decibel increase in sound pressure level represents a doubling of the sound energy. Although it may appear to be a margin of five decibels, it is a much greater amount of noise than that would suggest, because of the logarithmic scale that is used in computing a decibel reading.
There may be a good reason, which my hon. Friend will be able to tell me, why there has been a slippage in the noise danger level. But whether it is 85 or 90 decibles, the fact is that at least 500,000 work people of the 6½ million people employed in manufacturing are at risk at the 90 decibel level every day of the week, and another 500,000 are exposed to 90 decibel-plus noise levels intermittently—that is to say, for less than six hours a working day. In other words, 1 million people in manufacturing every day are exposed to noise levels over the danger level set out in the code of practice. That figure in itself is something that should give us all cause for concern.
The Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work refers at page 111 to industrial noise. The report says that
cost and competition factors make this a special case where the influence of an authoritative code of practice is unlikely to have a sufficiently rapid effect unless underpinned by legislation.
The Robens Report considers that cost and competition factors are the reasons why the voluntary basis of the code of practice is unlikely to be successful. I find myself in agreement with that finding. Why should a manufacturer who is faced with narrow profit margins spend money on noise control measures unless he has to? It is not a matter of such an employer being a hard-faced industrialist who is anxious to wring the last farthing out of his factory and workers. It is simply that the additional cost which effective noise control measures will


impose upon him will push up the cost of his product and make him uncompetitive. The same argument runs through the whole of the environment case when it is applied to industry.
It is no good reading lectures to industry about what it should do unless everybody is to be brought under the same disciplines and restraints. It seems unreasonable to ask some employers to spend money and to make themselves uncompetitive.
If the Government are serious about reducing noise in industry they must consider whether they should lay down the ground rules for industry by way of legislation which will affect every company and will mean that all the manufacturing industries which the code of practice is designed to affect will be carrying the same burden. If that approach is adopted, there will be no question of one man getting an advantage by not bringing in noise control methods, as he will not have that option.
I do not doubt that some parts of the code of practice can be implemented without great cost. In a number of factories I have seen protectors which are worn when particularly noisy types of machinery are in use. I have also seen noise hazard areas clearly marked out. But ear protectors and the notice which denotes a noise hazard area are not expensive. Unfortunately, they may well be considered to be just the adequate gesture which needs to be made by industry to persuade the Department that the code is being implemented, and therefore may allow the Department to become complacent, which is a real danger.
I remind my hon. Friend, as the code does, that in any case there is as yet no British Standard for ear protectors, and that therefore one must accept that they vary in efficiency. If we are really anxious to get the best out of ear protectors we should go for a British Standard which industry can accept.
Apart from ear protectors and the notices to warn people of noise danger, will industry put in all the equipment and sound insulation material which the code suggests it should? I am afraid that this is unlikely to happen because of the cost, but again perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me how successfully the Department believes that the code is being implemented.
My second question is: what further publications does the Department intend to introduce to support the code? Does my hon. Friend envisage a booklet for the worker rather than the factory manager? The code is a booklet for the manager. It advises him what he should do, but it does not warn the worker what he can do if he is in a high noise level danger area. Of course, other physical diseases besides deafness are caused by noise, but it is deafness, in particular, that we know as the greatest and most obvious diagnosed disease caused by excessive industrial noise. Is such a pamphlet for the workers in the pipeline?
I suggest that such a document for the workers might be useful for the trade unions as well, because—surprisingly enough—they have shown extremely little interest in the noise question in industry. Indeed, in view of the damage done to workers' hearing it is remarkable that so few trade unions have initiated or invested in reports to discuss the effects of noise. There are, of course, exceptions. There was the well-known study by Mrs. Jean Stone at the request of the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, published last year, and the work by Mr. Ted Tullock, of the Associated Metal Workers Society. Presumably, Mr. G. H. Lowthian of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, who was on the sub-committee which created that code, must have been appointed because of his interest in the subject.
Leaving aside these exceptions—and there may be others—the great bulk of the trade union movement has shown little or no interest in the subject. To quote the words of a constituent who suffers from industrial noise-induced deafness, the unions, like management, have turned a deaf ear to noise.
At the Trades Union Congress this year, as ever, there was no debate on noise in industry. Therefore, that million of working people who work in noise hazard areas apparently do not yet rate for particular consideration by the congress. I find that very disturbing.
If the delegates had read Mrs. Stones' booklet they would have read that of 87 employees she tested 55 had some degree of hearing impairment attributable to noise exposure—that is, 63 per cent. of


the people she tested suffered from working in excessive noise. These worrying figures ought to be publicised widely. Loss of hearing caused by excessive noise is not accepted as an industrial disability for which compensation is paid.
I admit that in 1971 an employee at Stone Manganese Marine—a Mr. Frank Berry—won damages in a common law case because of deafness caused through his work. He shaped bronze propellers with pneumatic hammers, working sometimes in 120–126 decibels. But it was a common law case. He could not then—and even today could not—claim any industrial deafness payment. Only this week I received a letter from Mrs. Stone in which she asked me about the present state of the law. She said:
The latest information I have is the recommendation of the Robens Committee. I wonder whether the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has reached a decision on the prescription of occupation deafness as an industrial disease.
Right across industry people are going deaf simply because of their working conditions; the lorry driver whose cab will often have a noise level of 93 decibels; the hosiery worker in 81 to 94 decibels; and the bottling plant worker up against 94 decibels. The weaving industry has the traditional saying "as deaf as a weaver."
There is the woodwork industry. Recently, when I visited a factory close to my constituency where some of my constituents work, I was unable to speak to those who took me around. The management proudly told me that the machinery was brand new, having been bought recently from West Germany. But the workers had to wear ear muffs. I accept that they were advised to do so because the noise level was so excessive.
The drop forge industry, the construction industry—all of them have workers working in these dangerous levels. Engineering and machine shops—the list is endless.
What protection have these people? Only the permissive code of practice and the undermanned factory inspectorate, which I am told on average visits a factory once in four years. Even if they are trying to see that the code of practice is implemented, once in four years hardly amounts to much of a check.

Some employers have a philanthropic attitude. There are some who, despite the additional cost, will put in noise-reducing measures.
It is not enough, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. What is more, the code of practice makes no reference to the fact that hearing deterioration is progressive with advancing age. In other words, older people will suffer a greater hearing loss as a result of noise than will younger persons. That leads me to suppose that the code of practice should have suggested that older people should not work in conditions in which they are likely to be exposed to excessive noise and that this should have been made specially clear to managements. It highlights the need for more information in the Department.
What I have said makes it clear that I do not think that the code of practice goes far enough. I hope that the Department has plans for spending more money on information about noise, and on what might be described as an education campaign. I have also said that I share the view of the Robens Committee—a view widely held—that there should be legislation to support the code.
The code aims to tell factory managers how to reduce noise levels in their works. What is needed is the other pamphlet mentioned on page 4 of the introduction to the code—to advise machinery manufacturers how to quieten the equipment that they sell to industry and which is the cause of all the noise. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that this pamphlet is just about to be published, and can also say how much will be spent on it.
In conclusion, I want to quote some words of Professor B. L. Clarkson, of the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at Southampton University. He said:
The only really satisfactory way to reduce noise, or to control it to a certain level, is to ensure that quiet designs are produced in the first place. In the long run this is also likely to be the most economic method.
Thus noise should be considered as a design parameter and steps taken at the drawing board and product development stage to ensure that a satisfactory machine is evolved. This may not be much more expensive and will certainly be cheaper than trying to fix something which has turned out to be unacceptably noisy. In some cases where the noise is due to sound radiation from vibrating structure,


an increase in the life of the machine may be produced by reducing the vibration and hence sound radiation. In the interests of overall economy a noise criterion should be imposed on new designs.
This should best be done perhaps by establishing noise certification procedures for new products. This is already coming in for new aircraft and motor vehicles, and should be extended to all machinery which is capable of making noise. Thus new designs would have to meet a specific set of noise requirements just as they have to meet safety requirements.
I think that Professor Clarkson is right.
To try to tamper with machines which make noise when they have been installed in the factory is, at best, only a palliative. What is needed is to get at the noise at source. I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

4.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Even at this late hour, I am not ungrateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) for giving me the opportunity to explain something of the activities being undertaken by my Department to deal with the undoubted risks to health arising from noise in industrial undertakings, and especially to comment further on the code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed people to noise. My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this subject and it is clear from the wealth of detail that he has produced tonight that he considers these matters with great seriousness and study. We are grateful for his interest in this category of difficulty that can affect the industrial worker.
As the House knows, the historical background is that the Wilson Committee on the problem of noise identified industrial noise as a serious cause of annoyance but could not establish its effect with any precision—especially the effect on the health and safety of workers. However, this area of uncertainty was clarified by the publication in 1970 of "Hearing and Noise in Industry", by Professor W. Burns and Dr. D. W. Robinson. It summarised the results of the investigation commissioned in 1962 by the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
The report concluded that the hearing loss to be expected to occur in an average population from varying occupational exposures could be predicted by the application of a principle which has come to

be known as the equal energy principle, by which is meant that hearing is impaired by the combined effect of the intensity of the noise and the duration of the exposure. I know that my hon. Friend understands that, even if many others do not. Identification of the problem offered an opportunity to establish the basis on which it could be tackled. The reduction of either the intensity or the duration of the exposure will reduce the deafness arising from industrial noise.
The report was considered by my Department's Industrial Health Advisory Committee, which set up a noise sub-committee to advise on action to be taken. The TUC and the CBI are represented on both the main committee and the sub-committee. Others are co-opted because of their specialised knowledge about noise, and they, too, sit on the sub-committee.
Its first achievement—I emphasise that its task is a continuing one—has been to produce the code of practice, which was published in April, as my hon. Friend said, and which I had the honour to introduce on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The code sets out what needs to be done to protect those at work from noise severe enough to produce a serious risk of deafness, and applies to anyone in industry who is exposed to noise. Of necessity, it is a fairly technical document in part, but I shall take this opportunity to summarise some of its contents.
First, the code sets out a limit for exposure to noise without ear protection, and describes the methods of measurement to be used. The limit is 90dB(A)—that is, decibels measured with an A-weighting—where exposure is for eight hours in any one day, and "equivalent continuous sound levels" are given for shorter exposures by means of a formula under which the exposure duration should be decreased as the continuous noise level increases. For instance, at 99dB(A), maximum exposure would be one hour. Maximum noise levels of 135dB are also given which should never be exceeded without ear protection in any circumstances. A rough and ready formula, one might say, is: the louder the noise, the shorter should be the duration. This is extremely important.
My hon. Friend asked whether we had slipped in choosing this level, as compared with the levels which were recommended


some years ago. I am advised that the 85dB limit is on octave point levels, and is roughly equivalent to 90dB overall on the A scale. Thus, there has not, in fact, been a change in standards. I hope that my hon. Friend will be somewhat reassured.
Secondly, the code of practice recommends measures to be taken by management. It should first aim to reduce noise emission at source, or to remove workers from the noise. Where this cannot be done immediately, areas should be identified in which ear protection is required. Entry into these areas should be controlled and individual ear protection provided for everyone entering.
My hon. Friend asked about ear protection and the need to relate it to British Standards Institution levels. I understand that a BSI committee, on which the factory inspectorate is represented, is producing a standard test technique. Testing is very difficult. Progress is slow. Nevertheless, the matter has not been neglected; it is being looked at. I am hopeful that the committee will come up with some useful suggestions.
Thirdly, the code recommends that employees should comply with these measures and, in particular, should wear the ear protection provided.
In general, the code deals with noise as a health hazard, as it affects hearing; it does not attempt to deal with noise as a nuisance, trying as that may be, and as all of us, as members of the public, have experienced. But it does advocate, as a general principle, noise reduction in all circumstances.
Since the code deals with the engineering aspects of noise reduction it does not cover the medical management of noise-exposed personnel or the place of audiometry in an industrial noise conservation programme. It tackles the hazard, as we have learnt to tackle other problems of environmental pollution, by setting up maximum acceptable limits of exposure, advising the means by which these limits can be reached, and advocating measurements to check that acceptable standards are achieved.
Obviously the first need in the factory is to identify those areas where people are exposed beyond these limits. This requires someone trained in the use of

instruments and time allowed, with the support of management, for the carrying out of the survey.
The code's recommendation that areas and machines which exceed the stipulated levels should be marked is a breakthrough in the concept of identification of industrial risk which has aroused surprisingly little adverse comment. It recommends that records of the survey should be kept where exposure is not continuous, so that the equivalent continuous sound level may be calculated.
Regretfully the code has to acknowledge that protection of the worker by means of ear defenders is often the only immediate step that can be taken to limit his exposure and therefore the risk of his incurring noise-induced hearing loss. Such protection must be carefully selected. The choice between ear muffs, various types of plugs and more sophisticated ear protectors must take into account the noise levels to be encountered and other relevant circumstances.
To make available the devices is not enough, as I know my hon. Friend appreciates; provision must be accompanied by a careful programme of education and training of workers in the need to wear the protection, the purpose it serves, how to look after it, and records of the issue and purpose of issue advocated. I have found many factories where these pieces of equipment are issued. All too often one sees people not using them, and not aware of the real dangers that they are running by not having them.
There is no disguising the fact that no one would wear ear protection if it could be avoided. Employees cannot be expected to wear it correctly and conscientiously unless they have been brought to realise the need. They are likely to accept the inconvenience more willingly if they can see that at the same time a determined effort to reduce the noise levels is being made.
All this means that there is an immense task to be performed in educating managements and industry generally, and these are the kind of practical problems on which factory inspectors are concentrating in giving advice.
I emphasised at a Press conference which we held to launch the code that


it was not the end of the story, and I am glad I can repeat that assurance tonight. The work does go on.
We are now well aware of the extent and seriousness of the problem of noise in industry. The Factory Inspectorate has established, from a carefully conducted pilot survey carried out on a statistically random sample in 1970, that practically no manufacturing industry is without a noise problem. The survey showed that approximately half a million people are exposed to 90 dB(A), or above that level, for more than six hours per working day, out of a total of about 61 million people who are employed.
A further 500,000 are exposed for less than six hours per working day. That shows clearly how widespread the problem is, and we certainly do not rule out legislation in the future. It is a very relevant point in consideration of the Robens report, which is now under detailed examination. The technical problems of association with noise control are complex, however, and we felt that it would be essential to gain experience with a voluntary code before attempting to consider the form which legislation should take. That decision has proved a wise one, and from the discussions we have had on putting the code into practice we are building a firm basis on which to consider in detail the recommendations of the Robens Report that there should be basic statutory requirements on noise control.
In his foreword to the code the Secretary of State said that it was a first important step in the prevention of loss of hearing due to noise at work. In addition to considering the question of legislation the noise sub-committee at its meeting this Friday will consider other related aspects of the problem, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned. I can tell him that when it meets on Friday it will have before it in draft a code for machinery noise, which I am sure he will welcome, and I believe that this will make an important contribution in this sphere.
Audiometry is a much more complex subject, but this is being looked at by the sub-committee, and Messrs. Burns and Robinson are in the midst of a research project in depth. It is not yet complete, but again these matters are certainly not

being ignored. The important measures which they are considering will deal with the design and the noise emission of machinery, and all the aspects of the medical management of noise-exposed personnel.
I conclude by saying something of the implementation of the code so far. I thought that my hon. Friend did us less than justice when he said that we had certainly launched the code with a good deal of publicity but that little had been heard about it since. I can assure him that this was not just a once-and-for-all action, and that the work has been proceeding satisfactorily. More than 17,000 copies of the code have been distributed, which makes it a best seller among safety and health publications. These are copies which are actually being used, not just consigned to the wastepaper basket. Factory inspectors have brought it to the attention of industry on every possible occasion. My hon. Friend raised the question of leaflets for workers. A leaflet has been produced and distributed freely to workers. The trade unions have also played their part in distribution. The leaflet was produced at the request of trade union members on the noise subcommittee, so that they have again been playing their part.
During the first six months following publication factory inspectors have visited over 1,000 factories with serious noise problems and have advised the managements concerned what they need to do to carry out the advice contained in the code. The response so far has been good, and it is making a favourable impact, but it is still too early to make a judgment as to the future and about exactly what should be done. Specially trained inspectors equipped with precision-grade sound-level meters have undertaken noise surveys and inspectors and officials of my Department have taken part in seminars and conferences all over the country to spread the message about the code. Plans are in hand to improve the instrumentation of the inspectorate and include the provision of high-grade noise-level meters in every district, numbering about 120 in all.
The joint standing committees which advise the Secretary of State on matters of health and safety in industry, on which representatives of both employers and


unions sit, have given useful encouragement to the code. For example, the committee for foundries has set up a subcommittee which is now going on to look closely at ways in which noise can be reduced at machines used in that industry. The committee for cotton has sent a letter to all occupiers of cotton mills advising them to protect their workers in the terms of the code. I am particularly heartened by accounts which come in from factory inspectors of actual examples where, by a change of process, by redesign of a machine, or by the enclosure of the plant, the creation of noise is being reduced.
We have evidence to suggest that in all sections of industry it is now being recognised not only that noise is a serious problem but that something can be done to reduce it. There is much work ahead, but I have no doubt that the implementation of the code will achieve a significant reduction in noise-induced hearing loss among those who are now at risk. It is a problem with which we have lived for generations, but it has become significant only within the last decade or so, and we now know far more about it than we did. Far more sophisticated and intense research is going on into the problem, as we have been reminded tonight.
The Department is certainly not complacent in any way obout this and it intends to pursue very vigorously the initiative it has shown by producing the code.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is this new recognition of the problem of noise in industry and the harm it can do permitting the Industrial Health Advisory Committee to consider the loss of hearing because of noise as an industrial injury?

Mr. Smith: That, of course, is not my direct responsibility as a Minister at the Department of Employment. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act provides benefits in the event of incapacity or disablement because of accidents or disease prescribed under regulations made under the Act, and deafness is not a prescribed disease. The question whether noise-induced hearing loss satisfies conditions for prescription under the Act is currently under investigation by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I can go no further on that. All these

matters are kept under genuine review, and I emphasise again that my Department is determined to press ahead with every possible initiative to make a success in this sphere, and reduce the risk to which workers in industry are exposed.

CRIMINAL COURTS (ADMINISTRATION)

4.38 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The debate that I seek to initiate relates to a variety of anomalies, as I see them, which affect the administration and practices of certain criminal courts. I have given the Minister notice of probably all the points that I wish to cover, and while I appreciate that he may not be able to give categorical assurances that would satisfy me on all the points, I hope that some such assurances may be forthcoming. I hope that at this time of the morning I am not being unduly optimistic about that. They are a number of points, which I take at random.
The Minister will be aware that in a debate on the rule of law last Friday I mentioned one matter which is not terribly important but can nevertheless cause a certain amount of frustration and injustice to a small number of accused persons, particularly those appearing before magistrates' courts. This relates to the facilities available to have interpreters.
The Minister will remember that I then referred to a case which had been drawn to my attention by a lecturer at the London School of Economics, of whom he will know. This is about one of his students who was due to appear at Ealing magistrates' court on a criminal matter which was not very serious. This young man received an indication from the court, I am told, just the day before the hearing, that an interpreter would be available but that if he was convicted he might have to pay the costs of the interpreter. No opportunity was given to him to say whether he wanted an interpreter. When he appeared, there the interpreter was. In any event there was some evidence in this case that it was desirable to have an interpreter.
The young man was convicted, and a small fine was imposed. He was then ordered to pay the costs of the interpreter,


amounting to £5·25—not a vast sum but one which he had difficulty in affording. He unquestionably felt a great sense of injustice, because he felt that he was being penalised because he did not understand sufficiently the language in which the court was conducting its proceedings.
I do not know the scale of the injustice, or whether representations similar to mine have been made in some measure to the Home Office. Probably they have not, but that does not mean that people are not suffering from a sense of grievance. All too often it is just the people who require interpreters who do not know how to articulate their grievance.
In any case, I would have thought that it was an utterly bad procedure, and—what is worse—there seems to be some evidence that at that court there is not simply a discretion vested in the magistrates but almost a policy decision. Policy decisions, of course, can be dressed up as an exercise of discretion when in reality they are nothing of the sort.
I hope the Minister will give the assurance that this matter will at least be looked at, and that there is some authority for suggesting that this is a situation which the House has considered and legislated upon.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elysian Morgan) for drawing my attention to the position in Wales in respect of which specific provision was made that any parties or witnesses who would otherwise be at a disadvantage by their natural tongue being Welsh should have an interpreter free of charge. This right is absolute in the Welsh Langauge Act 1967.
There is authority under article 6(3)(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the Government are a signatory, which provides that anyone charged with a criminal offence has certain rights. One is the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language being used in court. It is a matter of concern, because it would be wrong for a man to be penalised because he was not fluent in the language normally used by the court.
My second point relates to bail. I shall not go into all the long arguments that we have had on the issue in a number of

debates. What success has been achieved by the circular that the Home Office issued about the remand of people in custody for reports? I understood that the Minister was as deeply anxious as any other hon. Member because people were being remanded in custody for reports for too long, and that that necessitated the publication of the circular, I believe in the middle of 1971, which suggested that governors of prisons or detention centres should advise the court when an accused person had been examined by a doctor, or probation or other officer, and the report was available, so that the accused could be brought before the court earlier than the normal three-week period. I believe that the circular has had only limited success, but I shall be delighted if the hon. and learned Gentleman can say that I am wrong.
The prison governor would no doubt find it a considerable administrative trouble and inconvenience to have to get in touch with the courts and all interested parties with a view to putting forward the date of the hearing. It is easier to forget about it and just wait for the usual period of three weeks to elapse. I hope that that is not happening. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be urging from the Home Office that courts should exercise their discretion much more readily to grant bail for the purposes of obtaining reports than has been the case, and that where reports have been made the opportunity of bail should be given to the accused person before the hearing. Obviously, that will not happen in every case there will be many where it will be inappropriate to grant bail. But in this day of terribly overcrowded prisons there must be quite a number of people who will be eligible in almost every respect to obtain bail once the reports have been completed.
I turn to a third, unrelated issue—the problems facing unrepresented defendants in magistrates' courts. We all await with considerable interest the consequences of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act and the Criminal Justice Act in this connection. We know that through the £25 scheme there will be additional facilities for representation at court. Although I had my reservations about some aspects of the scheme, which I think is inadequate, I do not want to prejudge it. It will also be interesting to see what will


be the effect of the last-minute amendment of the Criminal Justice Bill—as it was—concerning the availability of legal aid to a person who might be at risk of a custodial sentence.
An interesting article written by Michael Zander in the 23rd November issue of The New Law Journal on the subject of unrepresented defendants in magistrates' courts clearly stresses the need for the two new schemes to be a success. He points out that in 1969 the majority of those who were given custodial penalties were not represented, and that the majority of those who were charged with more serious offences were not represented before magistrates. That information was based on a survey of about 1,141 cases in London and a large number of other cases.
Mr. Zander has brought the position up to date, and research this year indicates that of 840 completed trials that were observed 729 resulted in pleas of guilty—that is, 87 per cent.—but only 9 per cent. of those pleading guilty in magistrates' courts, which were the subject of the survey, were represented, contrasted with 37 per cent. of those who pleaded not guilty who were represented.
Of 111 pleading not guilty there were 72 per cent. findings of guilt and 28 per cent. findings of not guilty. Of those unrepresented who pleaded not guilty 30 per cent. were found not guilty, whereas for those who were represented the figure was 64 per cent. According to Mr. Zander this indicates that there is twice as great a chance of someone's being acquitted if he is represented than there is if he is not. That accords with my own personal observation, which has not been scientific but is the result of practising as a solicitor in magistrates' courts for a number of years. This is not to criticise magistrates, but it is clearly true that if an accused person is represented by a competent solicitor or barrister the chances are that points which would not altogether appeal to an unrepresented accused person would be taken, and taken successfully, correctly and honourably.
All that this illustrates is that it is essential for the new £25 scheme to be a success, and I hope that the Department will keep it under careful scrutiny not merely in the first year but beyond

that, and will be open to arguments about its extension if it can be seen that it is not having the degree of success which I am sure the Minister would want it to achieve.
I turn to the fourth point which relates to legal aid. Again, I am not going over all the arguments that we have had since June 1970. There have been a number of occasions on which the Minister and I have been in debate on this issue. I am a little worried about an apparent development in a court close to my constituency—the North London magistrates' court. I have an enormous regard for the two magistrates who sit there, and I have therefore a certain degree of reservation about pointing out what could be an anomaly. But it is necessary, because I am told that the practice is also occurring in other courts.
There seems to be a decision that—again, it operates within the cloak of the exercise of discretion—where, after the committal proceedings, a magistrate feels that the case could have been dealt with reasonably and successfully by him instead of going through the paraphernalia of trial before judge and jury, legal aid should not be rendered available to the accused person. If that were a policy decision I should deeply regret it.
So long as there is the right of election for trial the magistrate should not take it upon himself to say that he could have dealt with the case and that the accused person was wrong to go for trial, and to penalise him by denying him legal aid, which might be his only opportunity of being represented. Where this has occurred the crown court may have put it right—I do not know—but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have something to say about it.
I have dealt on previous occasions with the evolution of a practice at Marlborough Street whereby shoplifters are all too frequently not granted legal aid, and where people involved in offences arising out of demonstrations are also not granted legal aid. There is some evidence that where a person is found to be in possession of a small quantity of drugs and the court considers that there should be no custodial treatment, legal aid is not granted by certain courts. I came across that situation about two years ago at North London. I do not know whether it is a continuing practice; I hope not.
Once again, I am indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention a point about legal aid of which I have not given the hon. and learned Gentleman prior notice. It arose only a few months ago. I am informed that legal aid is not available for prisoners who are in breach of prison regulations and are to be tried before visiting magistrates. I am told that such persons are held in solitary confinement pending trial. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says I am wrong about that, I may be, but that is my information. That is the very case where legal aid should be granted.
The criteria governing sureties are obscure and imprecise. I have looked at Archbold to try to find clear authority on this, and it is just not there. The Cobden Trust, in a recent publication cited an authority called Padger v. Cartwright, reported in 1843, 4 Queens Bench, at page 468. I have not given prior notice of that authority because I cannot find it.
I was also concerned that in that publication it was stated that all that the court could inquire into when considering the question of sureties was the sufficiency of the means and not the character of the proposed surety, or his political opinions. I could find no authority for that proposition. All that I could find in Archbold was the proposition that the bail must be of ability sufficient to answer for the sum in which they are bound. They are usually householders, but it is for the magistrate or judge to act upon his discretion as to the sufficiency of the bail, and the proposed bail may be examined on oath as to his means.
Presumably all that that refers to is the sufficiency of the surety's means. It also says:
The court or magistrate may, at discretion, order that reasonable notice shall be given to the prosecutor and the police, to enable him or them to inquire or object as to the sufficiency of the bail.
It does not disclose whether "sufficiency" relates to questions of general character or of political opinions in a political case; it would seem to relate only to issues of sufficiency of means. It continues:
No person convicted of any crime for which he had become infamous was allowed to be surety for any person charged or suspected of an indictable offence.

Clearly that would seem to suggest that a person of previously bad character, in the sense that he has been convicted, would not be a suitable person to act as a surety. But I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a matter which the departmental committee looking into the question of bail should be asked to examine. It is very important that courts should know what are their rights and duties in determining whether a person should act as a surety.
I asked a number of lay justices what they considered to be the appropriate criteria, and it appalled me that in almost every case they thought that the recommendations of the police should be adopted almost without question. Certainly that is not an issue which receives anything like the same scrutiny that the general question of bail obtains from courts. I am talking here primarily of lay justices, because I think that they need guidance on this point.
In certain instances, perhaps too many, there is almost a supine obedience to the word of the police on the question of sureties. This can be disastrous for an unrepresented accused person. All that I am asking for is that the committee looking into the question of bail examines this matter with some care.
I turn next to a point about which I raised a Question some time ago, which relates to the dock. I have long thought that the dock was a ludicrous anachronism in our criminal courts. In America they have long since done away with it. They take the view that it has no useful purpose. Indeed, it seems to me that its only purpose is to offer some measure of security in cases where it is thought that an accused person may seek to escape or cause some trouble during the proceedings. I always think that it is a considerable indignity for a person to have to go into the dock. When he enters it he is immediately placed in an exposed and somewhat prejudiced position. The mere fact that we have had the dock for an enormous number of years is no argument for continuing a tradition which has long since become otiose.
I asked the Minister of State a Question about that matter some time ago and he said that magistrates had a discretion, which he thought they exercised sufficiently, to allow accused persons not


to go into the dock. I know that with driving offences hardly ever does an accused person enter the dock, and quite rightly so. No doubt there is a number of other fairly minor offences in which that is the case. A young person does not have to enter the dock; he sits in front of it, with his parents. But there is a burden to establish that it still has some useful purpose.
The defending advocate suffers a certain amount of inconvenience in this way. He finds—the Minister of State must have found this when he was practising at the Bar—that, particularly in magistrates' courts, he does not have the opportunity before the case to take instructions on all the points likely to arise, and that he must go to the dock to take instructions. That sometimes means that the proceedings are interrupted because the magistrates say, "Would you like us to stop while you take instructions?". The inexperienced advocate may choose the wrong moment to do it, because if a telling point is made by a prosecution witness he will go to the dock and take instructions at once, thereby underlining the point. However, that is not the most serious part of it.
It would be much better if an accused person were able to sit alongside or behind his advocate, as people are able to do in civil cases. Only rarely is it thought that there is a security risk, and that other precautions need to be adopted. This also applies to the Crown courts, where exactly the same criteria govern the argument.
I come to two points relating not so much to the practice of the courts as to administrative questions. The first concerns the poverty of accommodation for accused persons in many magistrates courts and Crown courts, first, as to the way in which they are kept in very uncongenial cells and, secondly, as to the circumstances in which an accused person can consult his legal advisers. This affects some of our older magistrates courts—and again I think of North London—where, despite the very friendly and co-operative assistance given by police officers and prison officers, the circumstances in which an accused person gives, and an advocate takes, instructions are almost demeaning.
There is no available facility in which such interviews can take place that can in the least be regarded as reasonable. The cells are miserable, dank and ill-lit. What sort of impression of justice can be given to an accused person who is placed in that sort of situation?
It is not very convenient for a defending advocate either. I was recently involved in a very serious case at Winchester. The circumstances in which one was able to take instructions were appalling. This is a situation that exists throughout the country.
It is obvious that the question of modernising our courts and the facilities that are available is uppermost in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know that a considerable programme of modernisation is now going on, but in the construction of the new buildings has sufficient emphasis been given to the provision of suitable facilities for interviews, particularly for people who are in custody, or who have surrendered to bail?
It is not only the accommodation in that respect that is so bad in many courts. We still have situations in the older courts where witnesses attending court, persons who have not yet surrendered to bail, and solicitors and barristers find that they have to use lavatories outside, where the ability to be able to interview people who are not in custody is frustrated simply because there are no facilities available. I hope that even with the old courts some action will be taken to remedy such situations.
My last point concerns another matter about which the hon. and learned Gentleman will have had notice, because I have tabled Questions about it. A practice seems to have developed at the Inner London Crown Court, and elsewhere, of handcuffing accused persons when it is found necessary to have them taken from one part of the court to another—a journey which might involve using a public thoroughfare. I can understand that happening when an accused person has been deemed to be a security risk and has not been granted bail, but I can see no justification for it when an accused person has previously been granted bail and has surrendered to it. It is an administrative nicety or an administrative convenience,


but it imposes great indignity upon a person who is subjected to that sort of treatment. There can be no justification for it whatsoever.
When I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman about this he said—I am not able to quote him directly, but I think I quote him accurately—that handcuffing was applied only when there was a risk of danger to the person's own safety, or when there was a risk of escape. That is a monumentally irrelevant argument to a situation in which a person has previously been granted bail and has just surrendered to bail. It may be that it happens in only a minority of cases, but it has occurred and it should not continue to occur. It may be that if some positive response is offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman this debate will produce an end to this appalling position. Of course, it does not affect a large number of people, but even if it affects one or two wrongly it is a practice which should be stopped.
I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House for taking so long, but these points, unrelated though they may be, are worthy of investigation, even at 5.15 a.m.—burdensome though it is for the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have high regard for the way he carries out his duties, which I hope I have not impeded unnecessarily. I hope that he will be able to give me some assurance that these matters are being investigated.

5.15 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) for raising these matters at this hour of the morning. I hope that he has had a rather longer break than I have had since he was last sitting in this House on another part of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I will do my best to answer the various points that he raised. He was good enough to indicate to me pretty well every one of the matters that he has mentioned, and the Home Office was able to anticipate the type of subjects that he was likely to raise.
The very title of the debate,
Anomalies in the administration and practices of criminal courts in England

covers a massive range. It is bound to, because it includes any variations in practice from one court to another. Those variations are inevitable because of the way we run our system of criminal justice, in practice leaving a great deal to the discretion of the individual courts. Where much is left to the exercise of discretion by the individual courts there are bound, in practice, to be differences in the way in which such discretion is exercised.
But it has always seemed to me—and I have argued this on various aspects with the hon. Member, on many occasions—that if the independence of the courts is to be a reality one cannot tie their actions entirely by legislative decisions of the Government. It is bound to be the situation that Parliament should lay down the general powers within which the courts should act but the courts should have freedom to exercise their discretion over the use of those powers.
Whilst some of these anomalies—particularly those in sentencing—clearly exist, I make the point that the courts do all they can to avoid them, through such things as sentencing conferences. In any case, the anomaly is often more apparent than real. Often, the complaint of anomaly is based on a somewhat incomplete Press report which may not provide all the various and necessary factors on which the court acted.
I turn now to what the hon. Gentleman described as his points taken at random. He spoke first about the payment and use of interpreters, and suggested that the payment of an interpreter by the accused individual was an injustice.
With respect, I think that to describe the system as an injustice is putting it somewhat high. Under English law, responsibility for providing an interpreter rests with the party requiring it. Beyond that, the courts are guided by a decision given by Lord Reading in 1916, when he said that where the accused might not be able to understand English, it was
for the courts to see that the necessary means were adopted to convey the evidence to his intelligence, notwithstanding, either through ignorance or timidity or disregard of his own interests, whether he makes any application to the court.
Clearly and rightly, it is the final responsibility of the court to see that there is an interpreter present so as to ensure


that the accused understands fully what is going on.
In practice, an interpreter is almost inevitably provided, where necessary, by the prosecution in the magistrates' court, through the police. Most police forces maintain lists of capable interpreters. In practice, the prosecution anticipates that there will be a need for an interpreter, and to save adjournments and matters of that kind it provides an interpreter at that stage.
The interpreter's fee has always, therefore, come to form part of the prosecution costs, and where we are dealing with a summary case, those expenses have to be met by the prosecutor. But if there is a conviction the court has discretion to order the accused to pay the costs of the prosecution. The court may or may not in its discretion include the costs of the interpreter. There is no suggestion or power for the court, the prosecution having arranged for the interpreter to be present and the court having found the case not proved, in any way to charge the defendant for the provision of the interpreter. The power is limited in the normal way to ordering the accused to pay the cost of the prosecution, and this may include the cost of the interpreter. In practice I doubt that it is any more galling or frustrating for the individual defendant to have to pay the costs of an interpreter provided by the prosecution than, for instance, the costs of any witnesses brought by the prosecution.
In terms of financial penalties, in practice the overall amount of the costs, whether or not limited to a particular sum depending on the income of the individual defendent, are matters likely to be taken into account in deciding the overall penalty.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: May I put this case? Let us suppose that a person is charged with dangerous driving, that he has had the bad luck to collide with a person who comes from, say, the Highlands of Scotland. The costs of that latter person appearing in court, travelling and losing work, would amount to £25; another person who has had exactly the that is his bad luck. Let us now imagine same bad luck but who happens to have almost no knowledge of the English language. Why should that second person be charged on account of a matter that

is no part of the prosecution's case against him and that stems out of his own basic indigenous disability? That is where the element of injustice arise.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that there is some validity in that, but I do not see that in practice the fact that the defendant had to pay a fee of five guineas for an interpreter instead of £25—I am conscious that using the word "guineas" dates me somewhat—£5·25 for the interpreter instead of £25·25 for the witness coming from the north of Scotland—

Mr. Clinton Davis: Twenty-five guineas is £26·25.

Mr. Carlisle: With his Welsh oratory, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) would be able to persuade the court that the cost of £25—let us stick to £25—incurred by the witness from the north of Scotland was a matter that should be carefully considered by the court when deciding the amount of any fine that might follow on conviction. In principle, the same might happen with the cost of an interpreter.
The hon. Member mentioned the Welsh Courts Act. It was a valid comment. As long ago as 1962 this matter was considered. What the hon. Member said about Article 6(3) of the Convention on Human Rights was interesting and, on the face of it, appeared to have considerable validity. I think that the matter has not previously been raised with the Home Office.
To the extent that I may assure the hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to consider the whole subject, I will do so on the basis of considering whether the practice is contrary to that article and whether, at some appropriate moment, legislation should be introduced. I cannot promise early legislation. I have shown why in practice this is not anywhere near the injustice the hon. Member suggested it to be.
I turn to the subject of bail. I have often said the proportion of people being remanded on bail as against being remanded in custody in the magistrates' courts has been going up. In 1967, those remanded in custody amounted to 34 per cent. of all remands; by 1970, that figure had fallen to 27 per cent. of all remands. I do not believe that magistrates willingly remand in custody except when they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
I was asked about the effect of the circular issued by the Home Office about the period of a remand in custody for reports to be obtained. I agree that the effect of that circular, sent out in May, has been disappointing. It informed the courts that when a defendant was remanded for a report, the governor of the prison or remand centre to which the person was remanded should inform the court when the report had been prepared, with a view to the hearing's being advanced, or the release of the defendant on bail being considered until the date of the adjourned hearing. I think that the reasons for the disappointing result are practical. I suspect that it was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that prison governors were unwilling to draw the matter to the attention of the court but, rather, that there were administrative difficulties in shifting the date of a hearing once it had been fixed so long ahead, and with regard to magistrates' appointments, and so on.
However, what came out of it was a clear indication that reports could, in practice, be produced in a much shorter period than 21 days. Disappointed though we were, therefore, at the number of cases advanced in that way, in June this year we sent a further circular to the courts suggesting that, as a general rule, they should in future reduce the length of time for which they initially remand for reports from the hitherto normal 21 days to a period of 14 days. I hope that that will have the effect that the majority of remands will be for 14 days rather than for 21 days as in the past. Moreover, the Department of Health and Social Security has drawn the attention of regional hospital boards to the desirability of producing reports for courts quickly. Magistrates had sometimes had difficulty in obtaining reports on defendants remanded on bail and may, therefore, have been tempted to remand in custody.
The hon. Gentleman will have in mind that we have made arrangements at Holloway prison, at Durham prison, at Brixton prison and at Risley remand centre for the medical examination, on an out-patient basis, of defendants remanded for medical and psychiatric reports who otherwise have had to be remanded in custody for such reports

though they are otherwise suitable for bail.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any information about the success of what I should have thought were thoroughly worthwhile projects? What possibility is there for enlarging those projects elsewhere in the country, and particularly in London?

Mr. Carlisle: It is difficult to give a detailed answer. We found that the outpatient facilities at Holloway were not as widely used as we thought they would be. We have widened the catchment area, so to speak, of the courts to which this service was available. We have only recently instituted a similar service at Brixton prison and at Risley remand centre, which is the remand centre for the north-west of England.
I do not think that I can at this stage comment on the success of these important experiments. I am sure that we must do everything we can to reduce the number of those being remanded in custody, and the time for which they are remanded, but, in the end, there will always be a proportion remanded in custody, because it is necessary that that should happen.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he did not raise this matter—that during last year we opened the first voluntary bail hostel in London. The Criminal Justice Act now enables the Home Office to give grant support for bail hostels and probation centres, and we hope that probation and after-care committees will set up similar hostels. We are anxious to see an extension of the bail hostel system.
Now, legal aid. The hon. Gentleman hopes that the £25 scheme will be successful. I have no doubt that the implementation of the £25 scheme, under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act, will assist in the availability of advice for defendants on bail before their appearance in court and, through the power to invite a solicitor in the building to represent an individual defendant, in the representation of individuals in court where this is clearly desirable.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Zander's


article. I am not sure whether I necessarily drew from it the same conclusion—that it proved that there was twice as much chance of being acquitted if the accused were represented than if he were not. I see members of the legal profession on both sides of the House. At least that shows how good they are at staying up late at night. One hopes that the chances of those who are legally represented are better. The article might show no more than that more people are advised to plead guilty when represented and that only cases with a better chance of success are being fought.
Since we last debated this matter the Criminal Justice Bill has become law. and as from 1st January 1973 Section 37 of what is now the Act will apply. That section was introduced by the Government in the House of Lords. It says that in future no person can be sent on first custodial sentence—whether sentenced to a first sentence of imprisonment or to a borstal or detention centre—unless he has been given an opportunity of being represented.
I gave an undertaking during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act that the Home Office would commend the Widgery criteria in a circular to the courts. That circular should be going out on 19th December 1972. The percentage of cases in which legal aid applications are granted has been going steadily up both in the higher courts, where the figure is very nearly 100 per cent., and in the lower courts, where it is about 83 to 87 per cent. of the applications made.
The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the problem of applications not being granted in those cases on committal for sentence or trial when the court felt that the offence was of such a trivial nature that the case could have been dealt with adequately in the magistrates' court. I know of no such general principle being followed.
So far as the committal for trial is concerned, in 1970 the percentage of applications for legal aid on committal granted by the magistrates' courts was 99·3 per cent. of the applications made. In 1971, although I do not have the percentages, 40,540 applications were granted out of 40,834, which means that somewhere between 99·3 per cent. and 99·6 per cent. of all applications are granted.
Regarding the case in North London to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I am advised that it is true that the stipendiary magistrate questioned the need for the case to go for trial. But, contrary to what was reported, he did grant legal aid, although he indicated that he did so with reluctance. One must remember the pre-sure that exists today on the higher courts with committals up about 20 per cent. during the first 10 months of this year on the corresponding period last year and the amount of time being taken in the higher courts by trials of, on the face of it, somewhat minor offences. I see nothing wrong in stipendiaries, as they have from time to time, questioning the necessity for cases of that nature to go for trial rather than be dealt with summarily in the higher court. In the case to which I believe the hon. Member was referring in North London, the metropolitan magistrate made this point but nevertheless granted legal aid, although with reluctance.
The hon. Member asked whether I had any comments to make on what he believed to be a principle that in certain courts legal aid was not readily granted in drugs cases where the amount of drugs in possession of the individual was such that a custodial sentence was not in question. He will remember that the Widgery criteria were that legal aid should be granted where there was a genuine risk of a custodial sentence being imposed and therefore on the type of case that the hon. Member postulated the first principle of the Widgery criteria would not be met when, to use the words of the criteria, the accused is not in
real jeopardy of losing his liberty".
I can confirm that legal aid is not available for prisoners appearing before disciplinary proceedings in prisons. It never has been either before the governor or before a visiting magistrate. Whenever this has been looked at there have been found to be very real practical difficulties in altering it in any way.
The hon. Member then turned to the question of sureties. He asked various questions about sureties on bail. I can answer them all in one general way by saying that the question of sureties is one of the matters before the working party on bail which has been set up by the Home Office. For what my opinion is


worth, I listened to what the hon. Member said about the legal situation, and I would have thought that in common sense the suitability of a surety is equally important as his sufficiency. I see nothing wrong in that. Though sufficiency of surety may be the heart of the matter, surely magistrates have a responsibility to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the surety. I can see nothing wrong in the police objecting to a surety on the grounds not of his money but of his criminal background and the likelihood for example, of him doing his best to get the defendant before the court or not.
The hon. Member used one phrase which I cannot let go by without comment and rejection. He said
for example, their political opinions in a political case".
With great respect to the hon. Member, as a leading member of his profession, we do not have and never have had political cases in this country and political opinions are not a matter of concern to the criminal court.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I accept the Minister's stricture. Perhaps I may be forgiven at 5.15 a.m. for one slip at least. Of course, he is right in saying that we do not have political trials. What I meant to refer to was a trial in which there is some measure of what some people might deem to be political content but, nevertheless involving a criminal charge which must be dealt with on a criminal basis.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member went on to the question of the dock. It appears that the situation varies in different parts of the country. In London the dock always seems to be in the most inconvenient place for the counsel and solicitors. In the North of England counsel and solicitors sit just in front of the dock and it is convenient for taking instructions. But the hon. Member can make too much of this. It is in the discretion of the court whether the dock is used; it is merely a place of convenience where the defendant sits. Of course I take the point that in such matters as driving offences it would be inappropriate for the dock to be used and in most of the new accommodation being provided for the smaller courts there are no docks.
I was alarmed that the hon. Member seemed to indicate with approval, that

we might necessarily go down the road of the American practice in the way in which we operate some of our court procedures. Having seen criminal cases being conducted in the American courts, I am not sure whether it would be a wise course to follow. He said with approval, for example, that the defendant does not sit in the dock. I am not sure whether he is giving a good precedent for us to follow if we are to maintain the atmosphere of dignity in which the English trial takes place.
The hon. Member raised the question of poor accommodation. No one who has practised in the courts in this country will claim that all courts are perfect. The Home Office responsibility is not direct in this matter, however. We are not responsible for provision of the higher courts and the lower courts are the responsibility of the local authorities although, I agree, in conjunction with the Home Office. A lot of rebuilding needs to be done along with the building of new courts and the renewal of old courts. Local authorities have built more than 100 new courthouses in the last 10 years. They have carried out major improvements and adaptions to many others. A major programme is envisaged for the next five years and expenditure is rising from about £7,500,000 in the current year to £11 million in 1976–77. Like so many other matters it is a question of progressing as fast as we can within reasonable financial limits.
The hon. Member raised the question of the handcuffing of accused people, and he is right about the answer that I gave. It was that this should be done only—and it is done only—where there is a danger of escape or injury. Once a person has surrendered to his bail—he does not do so until he is called to come up to trial—his safety passes to those who are responsible for him and they must have the discretion to decide whether it is necessary to put handcuffs on him if they are moving him around, say, a thoroughfare of London. Of course, this is done only exceptionally. Prison governors have been instructed that handcuffs should not normally be used with escorted defendants who have surrendered to their bail, although there might be occasions when that would be justified. Even a man who surrendered to


his bail might be felt in a particular adjournment to be under exceptional strain and it might be thought that there was a genuine likelihood that he would attempt to escape. But it is not a custom which is widely practised. I believe I am right in saying that invariably if they have to take defendants through the streets handcuffed, the police, where possible, do so in transport rather than by foot. I know that the hon. Member can say that there have been cases in inner London quarter sessions where people have gone to outside courts. That is correct.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Would the Minister agree that perhaps this administrative difficulty would be overcome by simply arranging for the accused to surrender to bail at the court where the trial is to take place rather than where he normally surrenders to bail?

Mr. Carlisle: Judging from my experience, that happens at inner London quarter sessions, although one might have cases going from one court to another because of cases collapsing or a judge might decide not to renew bail over an adjournment and an accused person might have to be taken from the court for sustenance during an adjournment.
I apologise for the time I have taken to reply, but the hon. Member raised wide and varied matters.

HOUSING (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD)

5.51 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: I wish to raise the matter of the grant of a planning appeal by the Secretary of State for the Environment for 22 acres of land at Grange Farm. Bovingdon, in my constituency. The decision has not only horrified my constituents but is an attack on the green belt of Hertfordshire, which could collapse if the decision is taken as a precendent.
Bovingdon is a pleasant village on the ridge of the Chilterns with a still-rural character, although it has grown to a population of 3,000. There has been a great deal of ribbon development on the roads and lanes, but the essential charm of the village, with its village green, has not been lost. It comprises a conservation area. A feature of the village is a disused R.A.F. aerodrome built during the last war. It has hangars which provide valuable and extensive storage space for the Department of the Environment.
Surrounding it is lovely countryside, where it is difficult to imagine that one is only 25 miles from Charing Cross. Only a few miles away is the large new town of Hemel Hemstead and its presence makes the maintenance of the green belt round Bovingdon doubly important. It lies in an extension of the green belt and the countryside is therefore treated as green belt. It has hitherto been known as a listed village, but in "Hertfordshire 1981", the statement of planning ideals and objectives, it is described as an amenity village.
The policy of residential development in the rural areas is said in this document to be:
The main aim of the County Council in the rural areas is to retain and protect the rural character of Hertfordshire".
It goes on:
A perimeter limit is defined closely encircling the existing limits of towns and major settlements excluded from the Belt. Elsewhere, and including the smaller setlements not so defined, new building will be permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances unless required for agriculture or a purpose related directly to the needs of the rural communities.
Under "County Rural Policy" it says:
In these rural areas, the County Council has accepted the principle that settlements


should not be allowed to grow by the allocation of additional land for development at each Review of the Development Plan. In order to maintain the present character of towns, villages and countryside and retain the rural background of Hertfordshire, the County Council intend to continue the policy of concentrating new population in the towns and not allowing villages to expand".
Coming to "Intermediate Villages" which is what Bovingdon is, the report says:
For these villages, the County Council intend to continue the policy of accepting the principle of development on the listed ' sites defined in the submitted Written Statement to the First Review and on other acceptable infilling sites within the core of the village.
The population growth aimed at in the document for the period between 1971 and 1981 is 600. The county thinks that that could be managed on nine acres of two disused RAF domestic sites, 8·5 acres available within the village, and 55 acres on the airfield, replacing the hangars. However, in September 1971 the Home Office decided that it wanted the 55-acre airfield hangar site for a prison. A public inquiry was held in April and May this year, two months before the public inquiry on the 22-acre site at Grange Farm. The inspector found in favour of the prison, and the Secretary of State confirmed his recommendation. The inspector recommended that in the lay-out the Chesham road should be cleared of the existing airfield huts and that the entrance into the village from the south should be clear on either side.
The Grange Farm site, which we are discussing, lies just on the other side of the Chesham road from the airfield, bound on the north by the core of the village and to the east by ribbon development. It is 22 acres of pasture land.
The inspector, naturally unaware of the future result of the airfield appeal, described it as surrounded to some extent on three sides by existing development. Hence, he deduced that housing on it would not represent intrusion into open countryside. It was submitted at the inquiry for the appellant that there were only 8½ acres of land available for housing in the village, and that therefore more land must be provided to meet the county's plan for a 600 population expansion. The inspector commented in his summing up that
While the demand for more housing land may justify the release of some of the appeal site against a background of a positive

approach to the present housing shortage in the Outer Metropolitan Area, I consider it would be wrong to release any part of the site for housing purposes until a decision has been reached on the use of the land (about 50 acres), at present part of the disused Bovingdon airfield which adjoins the north-western part of the village, and the nine acres of Government-owned land in Middle Lane and Long Lane.
Evidently he thought that if the airfield site went for housing the appeal site should not be developed.
But surely the county allotted a 600 population increase to Bovingdon only because of the airfield site? It is entirely against the policy of the county for expansion to take place in green belt villages, save where there is already space.
When the appeal came before the Minister the prison proposal had already been approved. If the Minister had looked at the prison decision and related it to the appeal site, he would have found that the site would no longer be surrounded on three sides by development. Consequently, the building on the site will be an undoubted intrusion into open countryside. He would also have found that while 55 acres planned by the county for residential development were no longer available, the future population of the village had risen by between 600 and 1,000, of whom 500 would be prisoners. In those circumstances, how can it possibly be sensible to grant planning permission on the Grange Farm site?
I have not so far commented on the prison decision. It is a bitter blow to the village, who agree with the county council's planning statement that development in the village should be severely restricted. The Grange Farm planning decisions means that the village will be absolutely swamped with new development, and the residents can only feel that the Minister cares nothing for the protection of the village or the green belt, or for the county's planning policy.
In the light of the prison decision, the Grange Farm decision can only be interpreted as a direct attack on the whole green belt principle. I realise that my right hon. Friend is under great pressure, not least from me personally, to release more land for building, but I urge him never to take genuine green belt land, such as Grange Farm. There are acres of land within the green belt which add nothing to its greenery or its enjoyment.
I must frankly say that I believe a most terrible mistake has been made. The inspector could never have been in any doubt that Grange Farm was clearly green belt land and that it was totally against the county's policy to grant planning permission. Then when it came to the Department, I believe that there was no attempt to relate the prison and Grange Farm inquiries.
The result is a tragedy for Bovingdon, and I ask my right hon. Friend to put things right. He should revoke the approval on the Grange Farm site. If he cannot do that, he should revoke the approval on the prison which could go instead to an equally suitable site in Hertfordshire, and leave the airfield site undeveloped. Will he please make it clear that the unhappy Grange Farm decision must not be taken as a precedent for nibbling away the green belt?

6.2 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The rise in house prices"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Does the Minister have the permission of the House to speak again?

Mr. Page: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply to the debate.
The rise in house prices has gone much too far and urgent action is needed. In a free society, if insufficient land is currently available more should be provided through the planning process, to compensate for those who do not, for whatever reason, wish their land to be developed.
There should be a real determination in local planning authorities to find and to release additional land for buildings now.
There is an acute shortage in the supply of land for residential development in the South-East.
Those are not my words. That is a quotation from a recent publication by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and two of his colleagues, entitled "Need House Prices Rise". This is one of the most acute and socially dangerous problems of our times, the price of a home, the part which land plays in that price and the part that scarcity plays in the cost of that land,

and so when a planning appeal comes to the Secretary of State against the refusal by a local planning authority of permission to erect 600 houses that is an appeal of considerable significance.
When permission is sought to build 600 houses in the South East in one of the Home Counties, under circumstances where early development can be expected, in a region where the pressure for new houses is literally terrific, in the face of the daily clamour by the national Press, by the provincial Press, by the commercial and professional Press and, indeed, in this House, the Secretary of State must ask penetratingly why the permission was refused.
Fortunately, in this case we have the inspector who penetratingly investigated that question and who provides in his report the evidence taken before him during the appeal, a statement of his finding and a statement of his conclusion and recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Of course the Secretary of State is in no way bound to accept the recommendation of his inspector; the responsibility for a decision remains with the Secretary of State, and there are some occasions when he has to find against the recommendation. At the same time, in coming to his decision whether to accept the inspector's recommendation, he must abide by the evidence given at the inquiry. If he paid heed to other facts, he would have to reopen the inquiry for otherwise his decision might be upset in the High Court. That is one side of the picture.
But however important nationally it may be as a matter of policy to make land available, there are restraints, again as a matter of policy. One of those restraints is the green belt policy. I will again use the words of my hon. Friend in his recent publication:
People tend to want houses in the green belt and in pleasant semi-rural villages adjacent to employment areas.
We could perhaps recommend a regular review with a principal objective of securing a genuine green belt round each of the conurbations and most significant towns at an early opportunity and an open mind about releasing the grey areas for development.
That is similar in concept to the policy which we described in a Government statement of May 1971, when provisional green belt protection was given to the whole of Hertfordshire.


There are already 83,000 acres of approved Green Belt in Hertfordshire. In its review the county council had proposed a permanent extension of the Green Belt to take in a further 177,000 acres.
The Secretary of State at that time went further and announced that special green belt protection would be given on an interim basis to the whole of Hertfordshire not already allocated for development pending a final decision on the extension to the approved metropolitan green belt. It was pointed out that this was the most important modification to the first review of a county development plan which has received formal confirmation. I was reading from the Press notice which went out at the time, the notice which the public will have seen. It continues:
The permanent extension of the approved Green Belt awaits the outcome of the examination of current regional strategies as proposed in the South-East Joint Planning Study.
The review, which was the subject of two public inquiries, allocates for development sufficient land to cater for the estimated population up to the end of 1973.
In the case of some of the proposals in the review, the pressing need for more housing land in the Outer Metropolitan Area has had to be balanced against amenity considerations.
Prior to May 1971 Bovingdon was not in either the proposed green belt or the approved green belt. The fields which are the subject of the appeal to which my hon. Friend has referred were on white land, that is to say, not protected against development but prima facie to continue in the same use as pasture land. By the 1971 decision on the review of the Hertfordshire county development plan those fields received interim protection. So the land in question is not approved green belt.
But I do not complain about my hon. Friend describing this, even in his local newspaper, as green belt. However, I do complain when he says that this planning decision was an embarrassing blunder which may involve the Government in a £1 million scandal. Of course it was not a blunder, and it will not involve the Government in a £1 million scandal. The implication here is that the inquiry and the inspector's report were not properly considered. Indeed, in his statement in his local newspaper, my hon. Friend went on to say that I—he was referring to me—was misled by my advisers and made an error of judgment

about development surrounding the land. I must refute that entirely; also what is contained later in the article, where he says that I was under an impression that there was development on three sides of the appeal site. For that is exactly the information given by the inspector.
Again I return to the point that the Secretary of State must take the evidence of his inspector. At that time the fields were surrounded to some extent on three sides by existing development. Those were the words of the inspector at the time.

Mr. Allason: The difficulty is that they had ceased to be surrounded on three sides by development in the light of the decision which had been taken, possibly not by my right hon. Friend but within the Department, the present decision which removed then one of the three sides allegedly built up.

Mr. Page: The position was that outline planning permission had been given for the prison and a number of houses on the basis of a plan put before the inspector at that time showing buildings at the other end of the airfield. At the time of the inquiry there were buildings, and I presume there are still buildings. The important point here is that this field, on which permission has now been given for development, is alongside the development of Bovingdon village, or small town—whichever one chooses to call it. It is an extension of that densely built up area, of that boundary of Bovingdon. On the other one side there is also an area which is built up.
I do not know whether one calls Bovingdon a large village or a small town. The population is about 3,500 at present. It lies between the outer boundary of the approved metropolitan green belt in an area extending to the county boundary, which for the time being is treated as if it were within the green belt. A final decision on the precise area to be added to the green belt will be taken when the structure plan is prepared for this part of the county. In the meantime, we apply green belt protection to this area.
The total area with which we were concerned in this appeal was some 50 acres of land at the south-western end of the built-up area of the village, and planning application for housing was made


for that in September 1971 by the prospective purchasers of the land. They were refused planning permission by Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council. They then appealed and a local inquiry was held in June of this year.
There were two appeals, one relating to the entire 50 acres, which would have accomodated 600 houses, and the other relating to a lesser area, 22½, acres, forming part of the 50 acres, but on that 22½ acres 200 houses could be built. The larger area can be disposed of quite quickly. The inspector who held the local inquiry described the proposal in these words:
The proposed development, by virtue of its size, would represent a marked intrusion of urban housing into a pleasant area of open countryside which contributes effectively to the purposes of the proposed green belt because of its openness, contour, and the park-land effect it provides on the western approach to the village.
The inspector considered the proposal to develop the land against the background of the need for a positive approach to releasing more land for housing but concluded that the balance of advantage lay in keeping that area open. This view was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the appeal was dismissed.
So the interim protection of the green belt won the day on that appeal in respect of the wider area against 600 houses being built there and, in the event, on the second part of the appeal, which was allowed, it cut down the developers' plans from 600 houses to 200. The smaller of the two sites—a site within a site—was said by the inspector to be
surrounded to some extent on three sides by existing development".
The important point is not so much the fact that it was surrounded but the extension of the built-up area of Bovingdon. Unlike the larger site, the inspector thought that building houses on the smaller site would not be
an incursion of development into open country".
His conclusion on balance was that the current demand for more housing land might justify releasing some part of the site, although this should not happen until the future of other sites capable of development in the village had been

settled. Those other sites included the 50 acres at Bovingdon airfield then under consideration for use as a prison, with some staff housing.
The two important issues in the appeals were the application of green belt policy to the area, and the need to make immediate releases of housing land for development. When proposals are made for developing land to which green belt protection is given on an interim basis, the possibility always must be considered that an urgent need has arisen for the land which in the public interest cannot be left to be dealt with in the long-term planning of the area. The need to release at once more housing land in this part of the country is obvious to everyone. What had to be decided in dealing with the appeal was whether this need outweighed the green belt and other arguments put forward in evidence against the development of the land.
The inspector did not recommend in principle against development of the site but simply argued that the future of other sites in the village should he settled before any part of the land was released for housing. In considering planning appeals, the Secretary of State must decide whether the inspector has given the appropriate weight to the various issues before him. On the present occasion the Secretary of State could not agree with the inspector that the use of the appeal land should be dependent on the future of other sites in the village. If housing development could be contemplated on the site—and the inspector had said that it could—the current need for housing land cried out for its immediate release and not for delay for an indefinite period.
The future of the airfield site had been decided by the time the appeal decision was issued but the question of the two other sites to which the inspector referred was still undecided. The Green belt and local amenity issues were, nevertheless, serious obstacles to development and their strength was not underestimated. However, weighed against the need to find land on which to build homes, they were judged not to be strong enough to tip the scales against the appeal, and so it was allowed.
Consideration of what might happen to other neighbouring land would not have been a proper reason for delaying development of this land. In fact, as


events turned out, if one had thought that it was a proper reason, the granting of permission on this land for development of 200 houses was justified, because 50 acres of Bovingdon airfield which might have been used for that housing is to be used for a prison with only a few staff houses on it.
I must emphasise that this was a decision taken in relation to a particular site. It does not follow that a precedent has been set which will be followed blindly. That is not the way in which appeals are dealt with. Each case is decided entirely on its merits and in the light of its own circumstances. There need be no fear that approval will automatically be forthcoming on other appeals which are superficially similar to the Bovingdon one.
I return to the Government's housing land and green belt policies, which were major considerations in deciding the two appeals. The Government's commitment to make more land available for housing, especially in the land pressure areas, in the South East and West Midlands, is, I am sure, well known by now. My hon. Friend will not need reminding of the details of the Government's drive: the issue of Circular 102/72, the £80 million allocation of loan money to enable land to be assembled for private development, the loan availability returns called for from local authorities, and further releases of land in the new towns. Government Departments and nationalised industries have also been involved.
But I must quote another paragraph of the Department's housing circular on housing land because it puts the other side of the picture. The circular states:
Further releases must, however, be made with due regard to environmental considerations. The Government attach great importance to their policies of protecting the countryside from sporadic development, and safeguarding areas of natural beauty, areas of high landscape value, green belts and conservation areas.
Those are not empty words. At the end of September the then Secretary of State for Environment announced that he was approving a major addition in Buckinghamshire to London's green belt, and that he would be safeguarding proposed green belt areas in Kent. At the end of October he announced proposals which would lead to the confirmation of 540 square miles of green belt in the West

Midlands, and interim protection of a further 200 square miles.
These are not the actions of a Government who are preparing to abandon their environmental policies. It was green belt considerations that tipped the scales against the larger of the two appeals, and housing needs together with a more enclosed site that led to the smaller appeal being allowed.

HOUSING IN WALES

6.24 a.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: Earlier this morning, many hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands), who has soldiered on with me throughout the night, drew attention to the threat which the proposed new town of Llantrisant would be to the prosperity and to the possible survival of our valley community in South Wales. I am talking not only about my constituency but about my home. Its future depends upon creating a sound industrial base so that sufficient job opportunities can be provided not only for the people who are now unemployed, but so that we can retain the young people instead of seeing them forced to move to other parts of the United Kingdom by the high and long-lasting unemployment in these communities.
But apart from job opportunities there are other aspects of our daily lives in these areas which need the Government's urgent attention. That is why I have chosen to raise this subject in this morning's rather curtailed debate. Decent homes are not only necessary for those who now live in the valley communities of South Wales and other towns in the area but are necessary as inducements to new industry to come to Wales. That is an illustration of how housing policy affects an area.
The White Paper, "Fair Deal for Housing", said that one of the Government's housing objectives was
a decent home for every family at a price within their means;".
Many of us in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom regard those words as a sick joke when we look at the present position of many aspects of the Government's housing policy. No one can suggest that the picture is encouraging,


for we see rising house prices which, as the Minister for Local Government and Development has just indicated, are causing such great concern. Rents are escalating and there is a slow-down in house building.
It is true that there is one bright spot—the increasing number of improvement grants being made available. But even here there is fear in some quarters that much of the money may be going to property speculators instead of to those who need it most. The Government, by sticking stubbornly to the June 1974 deadline for the final date for paying the 75 per cent. grant, are creating considerable difficulties, anomalies and injustices.
House purchase is dear to the hearts of most Welshmen. In my constituency this is illustrated by the fact that 70 per cent. are owner-occupiers. This desire to be independent, to be free of the rent collector and to get rid of the property speculator is prevalent in Wales. But young couples anxious to set up their homes are being priced out of the market. The year 1972 is becoming the year of the gazumper. Throughout Wales, increases of hundreds of £s are taking place between the first offer made by a young couple and the final settlement.
I have some figures from a neighbouring constituency illustrating the situation. In September 1971 a two-bedroomed semi-detached bungalow was up for sale at £3,995; eight months later it was being sold for £4,995; on a two-bedroomed detached bungalow there was an increase of £1,045 in the same eight months; a three-bedroomed semi-detached bungalow increased in price by £1,445 over the same period.
These massive increases are making home ownership beyond the reach of many of our young people. It is now estimated that the typical Welsh house-buyer, if he is lucky enough to earn even £41 a week, has to make mortgage repayments of £38 a month, which represents 21·4 per cent. of his income. That is a high percentage of the family income, quite apart from rates and other payments. It is a heavy strain on any family man, even if he is fortunate enough to have that income. But it is a burden that many young people have to carry far many years. For those on

lower incomes, home ownership is becoming almost impossible, particularly if they desire, as so many young people naturally desire, a modern home. The Secretary of State for Wales on 29th November told the House that the average price for a new house in Wales in September 1972 was £5,471, a 20·5 per cent. increase on the figure for September 1970.
Who is responsible for this? The Government usually tell us to look at the trade unions, who are calling for excessive wage increases. Or they say it is the rising price of building materials, beyond their control. Why, then, have prices of second-hand houses rocketed to the same extent? No wage increases have been paid to the people who built them, nor have extra costs for materials been incurred. The average price for a secondhand house in Wales is now £5,452, which represents a 26·6 per cent. increase on 1970 prices. These figures were given to the House by the Secretary of State for Wales.
What affect will the Housing Finance Act have on rents? The Government have a stock reply—that it is too early to assess its effect or that the figures are not centrally available. This is not good enough. If the fears we have expressed are unfounded, then it is up to the Government to prove it by collecting and publishing the facts and figures.
Some of the figures which are emerging are far from reassuring. We are told the Act will bring untold benefits to massive numbers of council tenants. I have managed to get the figures from the Newport borough, where they have some 11,000 council houses. Of the 11,000 tenants, 3,600 claim rebates, yet 2,500 of the 3,600 had previously been in receipt of supplementary benefit in rent allowances. So this means that only 1,100 benefit, and of these some 600 were previously receiving rebates under the Newport authority's own rent rebate scheme. So in this large borough it comes down to merely 500 new claimants. I believe that these figures can be repeated up and down Wales. Of 2,800 applications for a rent rebate in my constituency of Rhondda, 2,000 were in receipt of supplementary benefit rent allowances. If all the additional claims were allowed there would only be some 800 more receiving rebates.
I ask the Government for a detailed statement on the working of the rents Act in Wales. If I can get the figures for Rhondda and Newport, the Government can get them from most of the other local authorities in Wales.
The White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" said the object was to create fair rents between one citizen and another in giving and receiving help towards housing costs. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the cut in Government subsidies for house building in October 1970, one of the declared purposes was to reduce the level of Government subsidies to local authorities. That meant that council tenants were to receive less help from central government towards their housing costs. Yet in a parliamentary reply on 4th December this year it was quite clearly indicated that the tax relief on mortgage interest to owner-occupiers is increasing. The figures for the United Kingdom are: in 1968–69 tax relief for mortgage interest was £195 million; 1969–70, it rose to £235 million; in 1970–71 it rose to £300 million, and by 1971–72 to £340 million. On the one hand we see subsidies to council tenants going down and on the other hand we see the tax relief on mortgage interest going up. I am not suggesting that these tax reliefs should not be given, but I am suggesting—and I think that most fair-minded people would agree—that we should treat council tenants and owner-occupiers equally fairly.
I should like the Minister—not now, perhaps, but by letter—to give the comparative figures for Wales so that we may see how unfairly the so-called "Fair Rent" Act is affecting council tenants in Wales. May we have the figures to show the drop in subsidies for council house building and the increase in mortgage tax reliefs for owner-occupiers?
The house-building programme is probably the most disastrous of all. We have had a slump from the peak figure of 20,158 in 1967 to 15,101 in 1971. I think that I am fair, perhaps over-generous, in saying that the estimate for 1972 is still about 15,000, a considerable fall from the 20,000 in 1967. The Minister may console himself by saying that alongside the 15,000 figure, private house building is up. Nobody denies that, but the balance is now completely distorted, because the fall in council house building has

been only partly met by increased private building.
More important is where the private houses are being built. Are they being concentrated in the towns of great need, or concentrated in the more salubrious areas of South Wales such as Llantrisant, the Vale of Glamorgan and so on. How will the building of private houses help the 1,264 people on the waiting list of the Rhondda Borough Council? I am not suggesting that private building should not take place, but it must be at least matched by an increase in council house building.
I have previously asked questions about the 75 per cent. improvement grant. Increasing the amount to 75 per cent. was an excellent idea and a fortnight ago the Minister gave figures to show that the increase from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. had been of considerable value. But I warn him that his enthusiasm is likely to turn sour. I give an example from the Rhondda to show what has been happening.
In the past 10 years in Rhondda we have issued 4,363 grants costing £1½ million—at the old 50 per cent. rate. That means that our building force in Rhondda can cope with about 400 applications for home improvements a year. We now have 2,500 applications in the pipeline. Our building force has extended itself and is now dealing with some 700 applications a year. But it has now reached saturation and cannot cope with any more.
The 2,500 pending applications will provide work not only for our own building force but for builders coming to the valley from outside, for 3½ years, and that does not account for the applications coming in month by month. We have more than enough applications to keep us going far beyond June 1974. Thus, many of the 2,500 individuals whose applications are in the pipeline will be disappointed—and more than disappointed. Many will be unable to afford the improvements that they need if we are forced to revert to the 50 per cent. rate after June 1974.
The people likely to be left behind are the elderly, the disabled, the widow who lives alone, the person who has no contact with a builder, who does not go about a great deal. These are the people


who now are having difficulty in finding a builder to do their work, and they are the very people who are likely to be left behind if the date is not put forward. I urge the Minister to press on his right hon. and learned Friend the importance of this matter so that it may be taken up in the Cabinet.
I have sought, briefly because of the hour, to draw attention to the major defects in the Government's housing policy as it affects Wales. Although we shall welcome a reply from the Minister of State, what we want is Government action to tackle the problems and provide the necessary remedies.

6.41 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I support with enthusiasm the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) has so powerfully presented. I congratulate him on his choice of subject, for there is no matter among all those we have debated today of greater human importance than housing, touching, as it does, the life of the individual, of the family and of the community.
The Government's housing record is dismal throughout Britain, but in Wales it is more miserable than it is in any other part. The Minister has on other occasions sought, with his usual panache, to put a brave face on it, but, for all the sleight of hand which can be practised with statistics and all the misrepresentation in the selection of data, there is no controverting the basic facts, which clearly show that there is no comparison between the record of this Administration and the infinitely superior record of its Labour predecessor.
In the five years up to 1970, the Labour Government built, on average, 18,000 houses per annum in Wales. In the five economically easier years up to 1964, the average achieved by the then Conservative Government was 13,000. If the present Government's housing record is no more than to equal in virtue that of their predecessor, they must improve on those totals—if I may indulge in an Irishism.
Three factors make that necessary: first, the continuing increase in population; second, the fact that people are

marrying younger and forming family units sooner; third, what was described in a wider context by the late President Kennedy as the revolution of rising expectations.
Since 1970, the Government's performance has been more in line with the pre-1964 performance than with that of the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend has shown, the Government will be lucky if they are able to build 15,000 houses in Wales in 1972. I doubt that they will reach that target. In the first six months they built 7,315 houses. That is the number of completions. Of those, 5,089 were in the private sector and only 2,226 in the public sector. This is a point which must be hammered home. In terms of the public sector 1972 has at the moment every appearance of being the most unsuccessful year since the end of World War II. One has to look at these figures against the background canvas of the very special needs of Wales in relation to housing.
Perhaps the House will bear with me if I quote some figures for 1970. There has not been a very great change in the situation since then. Out of our stock of houses in Wales, 220,000 had no indoor we; 165,000 were without a fixed bath; 226,000 were without a fixed wash basin. Over 55 per cent. of our houses are over 50 years old, comparing very badly with 45 per cent. of houses in the north of England which are over 50 years old, and 35 per cent. in the Midlands.
I accept what my hon. Friend said. It is true that the Government have disbursed very substantial sums by way of improvement grants. It is fair for them to acknowledge that in so doing they have continued the work so splendidly begun by the previous Administration under the Housing Act 1969. The point has been touched upon by my hon. Friend that some of these monies expended on improvement grants are squandered in situations where there is no justification for such expenditure. I refer to the giving of grants to persons who use them merely to improve the condition of weekend cottages which are second or third homes for them.
There is in Wales, understandably, a feeling of fury in relation to what is taking place. I am not referring to the pseudo-racialist attitude taken by a


minority of people who object to those coming from the Midlands. I refer to the attitude of ordinary people who say it is a misallocation of public funds to use them for purposes of private luxury and pleasure.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Is the hon. Member saying there was no such fury when improvement grants were made under the previous Administration?

Mr. Morgan: The Minister makes a fair point. The legal provision for the payment of those grants was contained in our Act of 1969. When that measure was debated, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree as one who took part in the discussion, it was never envisaged by any hon. Member of this House that there would be a racket in the misallocation of funds such as I have described. I do not think any blame could be attached to Parliament for passing that excellent piece of legislation. But the time has come to face up to a situation that has developed very rapidly over the past 12–18 months. We have evidence before us of abuse of public funds which is unjustified. Indeed in a country such as Britain, with over 3 million people living in houses of such a standard as to give them an environment that is intolerable, there is an element of evil in using limited, scarce public funds for such purposes.
There has been frequent reference to the Housing Finance Act. I believe that the Act bears more heavily upon Wales in proportion than it does upon any other part of the United Kingdom. Nearly 40 per cent. of the people in Wales live in council houses and housing will therefore be a very much greater burden for hundreds of thousands of families because of the Act. It does nothing to answer the basic problems which confront housing. It is unnecessary and it represents a strategic change in the Government's thinking on assistance. A point that the Government sedulously sought to conceal is that while at the moment, taking every form of assistance into account, the total sum paid by the Treasury each year for assistance amounts to about £470 million to £480 million, by the middle of 1975, with the full operation of the Act, that sum will have been reduced to about £250 million. In

other words there is a withdrawal of between £200 million and £220 million from that substantial subvention.
Labour Members have been daunted many times by the cavalier attitude adopted by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State about housing. There is no question of their having any strategy for housing. They do not seem to have any conception of the special needs of Wales and they have no idea of the magnitude of the challenge that confronts them. They seem to pride themselves on having a complete ignorance of the basic facts. My hon. Friends and I have asked questions on many occasions in the last 12 months but we have failed on each occasion to elicit information about the matters which are vital to an understanding of the problem. On 13th March I asked the Secretary of State whether he would ascertain the number of persons who were in serious need of rehousing in Wales. On 19th April I asked for details of the numbers of people seeking council houses and on 8th May I asked what machinery existed for notifying the Welsh Office of serious housing needs throughout Wales.
Throughout the replies, which are duplicated in answers to my hon. Friends, there ran a recurrent theme. The Minister had no statutory obligation, it was a matter for the local authority, and it was not an appropriate question for the Minister to consider. How can the Government build a policy without the raw material of the knowledge of the fundamental facts? He does not know and he does not want to know. The Secretary of State indulges in a wilful self-induced blindness and such blindness is the negation of the stewardship which he owes to the Welsh people. He has used the same blindness over the Housing Finance Act. We have had no information of the crushing effect that this will have upon the hundreds of thousands of families in the Principality.
The Government have made great play of their success in the private sector of housing. I have carefully studied the statistics of the last 10 years and the improvement that they have managed to achieve in private housing is not all that considerable compared with the figures returned during the Labour Government's term of office. But private sector housing


can never answer the problem of the Welsh people. In my constituency we have the coincidence of the lowest income per head and the highest prices. Very few of the 13,000-or-so wage and salary earners in my constituency are in a position to buy the average house. More than three-quarters of them are thousands of pounds away from being able to buy the average house.
It is, therefore, trite to say that any development in the private sector can answer that basic problem. Since the Government have chosen to provide fewer and fewer public sector houses, many people in Wales are condemned to a future of being unable to get a house of decent standards. Building societies, as I know well from my experience as a solicitor before I went to the Bar, will not advance more than about two-and-a-half to three times the basic salary of the husband applicant, and that means that many people are completely debarred from buying a new house.
We on the Labour side are not obsessed with the question of building council houses but we believe that in Wales the situation can be answered only by the provision of very substantial quantities of new council houses. It was a Labour Government through the Leasehold Act 1967 who were responsible for making over 300,000 persons in Wales owners of the freehold of their properties, persons who would have had no title to that property nor any estate in the land when the lease expired, were it not for that pioneering and radical legislation. We accuse the Government not so much of bungling and ineptitude but of having a philosophy which is the perma-frost of prejudice, which withers every possibility of conceiving of planning in the economy for the benefit of the community generally.
They think of a house as though it were a chattel, just like a motor car or a pair of shoes, the provision of which must be regulated entirely by un-trammeled and unconfined market forces. We must get the facts of housing needs. The Government cannot hide behind their blindness any longer. They must also give us the quantum of the allocation of improvement grants for second homes.
At the same time we also want some accurate statement of the effects of the

Housing Finance Act on the people of Wales. The Secretary of State from time to time represents himself in Wales as our interceder in the Cabinet, who champions our Principality against the competing claims on the Government, as against other sectors. He gives the impresion that he did that on the Housing Finance Bill. If he did, he must have put some facts before the Cabinet, and if that is so these facts should be given to the Welsh people if democracy is to have any meaning, with a comprehensive plan of the Government's strategy for the future.
All this, with Government calculations, should be published in a comprehensive White Paper. Only by that will the Government acknowledge the challenge. They must not delay further in this matter.

7.3 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): By leave, I will speak again.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) opened this debate in his customary way and probed carefully into the problems of Welsh housing. I shall address myself to most of those questions.
I was a little confused with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). He started by commending me for panache, and that was the very first time that anybody here had suggested that I had that quality. He went on to say, however, that we were suffering from a cavalier attitude towards housing. I reject that entirely. He has not provided a tot of evidence that this is so. During his speech, the hon. Member said that under the previous Government there were difficult years. Certainly they were difficult years, but he went on to say that there were now easier years. Indeed these are. This Government handle the economy a great deal better than did the previous Government.
Since the war, government, builders, housing associations and individuals have played their part in improving the stock of houses in Wales which are essential to our people. In broad terms, needs are changing from a gross shortage with overcrowding, as stated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), in 1970 to a situation in which greater emphasis can be placed not only


on the needs of special categories in the community such as old people and handicapped people but on the improvement and regeneration of individual areas.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: How can the Minister possibly say that the overcrowding situation has been improved when he and his right hon. and learned Friend admit that they have no idea of the number of persons who are applicants for rehousing in Wales? How can he admit, on the one hand, that he has no knowledge of the basic facts, and on the other, with absolute certainty state that the situation has improved?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Member will allow me to get on with my speech, I shall do my best to explain that.
There are large old houses which fall short of modern amenities and attractive environment. I am aware of the legal problems, to some of which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Some authorities have difficulty in getting labour to improve houses to within the yardstick levels. I realise that this is a problem, particularly in areas which find that they have too many three-bedroomed houses and need to build smaller units of one-and two-bedroomed houses. While I am not prepared to advise my right hon. and learned Friend to agree to a general increase in the yardstick levels, I would be prepared to consider individual cases on their merits and would agree for particular schemes to allow higher yardstick levels. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, he may like to advise the council that it should seek discussions with the Welsh Office. I can assure him that the cases will be considered sympathetically.
I appreciate the difficulties facing Rhondda and other councils in having to take awkward decisions between the clearance and the improvement of older houses. It is very easy for those outside local government to say what ought to be done, when they do not have to bear any responsibility for the decision. It is a heavy responsibility to have to decide whether to order the demolition of someone's home, no matter how unfit it may be as a house.
The Government are concerned to bring about the improvement of as many houses as can be improved. That is why

we introduced more generous improvement grants, and why we are extending the time limit for 75 per cent. improvement grants in assisted areas, which include the whole of Wales, to June 1974. I know that that does not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman would like. But it is a great improvement on the situation some months ago, and the extension is very welcome.
The House will be aware—both hon. Members were generous enough to refer to it—of the great success achieved in house improvement. Only last week I was able to give the figures. Discretionary and standard grants in both the public and the private sectors totalled 20,429 in the first nine months of this year, compared with 7,870 in the same period last year.
The improved improvement scheme has been so successful that some councils feel that the pressure is so great on their staff and builders that it should be further extended beyond 1974. As the Housing (Amendment) Bill is on its way through the House, I do not think that this is the time for me to debate that point, which the hon. Gentleman raised at Question Time recently.
It is not possible to improve all houses that are unfit or nearly so. While I appreciate the difficulties, I must emphasise that there comes a time when a house that is unfit must go, and there are areas of unfit houses which should be cleared. This is a problem that has to be faced, and councils cannot avoid it simply by deciding that they will not clear unfit houses but will rely on improvement. The Government appreciate the problem, and have been very aware that the compensation generally awarded has not been entirely satisfactory. That is why we announced in the White Paper, "Development and Compensation—Putting People First", our intention to introduce a better compensation code, including home loss payments and, where unfit houses are cleared, a doubling of the rate of well-maintained payments. I think this will be welcomed. The new rate came into operation on 30th November this year.
I shall be understood by the House when I speak of the problem of the "rotten tooth" house in a terrace of good, sound houses. This is one of the most difficult problems facing many older


towns, particularly in the South Wales valleys. When houses like this in the middle of a terrace are demolished, the houses on either side are put at risk. They are each left with a wall that may not be safe, that will let in the damp. It is not particularly helpful to tell these householders that the person whose responsibility it was to demolish the bad tooth house is also responsible for making sure that the ends of their houses are left safe and sound. Too often he cannot be traced.
Rhondda Borough Council has been looking into the possibility of solving the problem of rebuilding in the gap, or, where it is the end house that has gone, at the end of the terrace. I understand that it has had some discussions with housing associations to see whether they can help. It has also written to the Welsh Office seeking to explore the possibility of financial assistance if it should do the work itself. Officials of the Welsh Office will be happy to meet the council's officers to discuss the whole problem and to see whether we can co-operate to find a solution, because a problem definitely exists.
In the general housing field it is true to say that by 1970, under the previous Government, in spite of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, the house-building programme was already declining. The pressure of demand in local authority house building was easing off, and the demand for houses for owner-occupation was being artificially restrained, particularly by the restraint on local authority mortgage finance. Under this Government, in the private sector, the easing of restrictions on local authority mortgage finance and the greater availability of mortgage finance generally has been of great benefit to those seeking to own their own homes. Completions and starts of private houses continue to rise—a 17 per cent. increase in completions and a 32 per cent. increase in starts in the first nine months of this year compared with the same period last year.
Those are remarkable figures, and if one adds to the number of houses completed in the private and public sectors the large number of houses which have been given a new life by improvement grants—numbers which I have already

given tonight—one sees the real scale of the Government's activity in this field.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to pay credit to all concerned, including the Government, in this advance in the living standards of the Welsh people. We are not complacent. There is much still to do, but improvement continues.

CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS (POLICE RECORDS)

7.11 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I welcome the opportunity to invite the Government to comment upon the unhappy and unfair situation in which at least 1 million people in this country and their families find themselves as a result of mistakes made by those individuals more than 10 years ago. I should like to read a letter that I have received from a youngster who does not live in my constituency but who wrote to me as a result of my invitation to young people in the senior schools in my constituency to suggest subjects upon which they would like to see legislation.
This is one of the most moving letters that has ever come to me. I have removed the name of the youngster for reasons that will appear, and I shall omit three items which may identify the district in which he lives. He wrote:
Dear Mr. Janner,
I see you want ideas for new laws. I am 15 and have a good idea. My Dad is a good kind man and votes labour too. He has worked in his job for 17 years.
Two months ago some goods was stolen from a shop near to us. A policeman came round in plain clothes and asked everybody questions. My Dad was being questioned downstairs and the policeman said, 'We know you have a record and been in trouble. You was in trouble in 1954'. My Dad said, 'Yes I was only bound over for a year'. We all heard it and Mum cried and we was all upset. But it was not my Dad who done it and two other men was fined at"—
and he identified the court—
I think you should change the law so as if a person lives a good life for some years these things should be forgotten and taken off the records. I won't give my address as we have had enough worry and we have all forgiven Dad. I was not born then anyway.
To me, it is shocking that a man's record should be dragged up and thrown in the teeth of his family about 15 years


after the offence happened, especially if it were such a minor offence that the court saw fit to treat it with a bind over. The time must come in any decent society when a person who has erred may say, "I have repaid my debt to society. I am now entitled to leave it behind me." The time must come when he can regard himself as rehabilitated and his slate as cleaned.
In most civilised countries there is some provision for rehabilitation; in our own there is none. This matter is not confined to one lad and his family. It has been estimated that there are about a million people who, having committed an offence, have gone 10 years without committing another and are extremely unlikely ever to stray again—even more unlikely to do so than those who have not committed an offence and suffered thereby.
In my constituency this matter has been raised, invariably quietly, by numbers of people who have suffered or whose families have suffered from the lack of any rehabilitative law. Some people cannot obtain insurance or cannot get jobs because a fidelity bond cannot operate where an employee has a conviction. Some people whose fingerprints are on files cannot get jobs, even as temporary postmen. This applies even when the person was convicted as a juvenile and even when a man has been arrested and there has been no prosecution.
There have been cases in which people have been charged with minor driving offences and their convictions for utterly irrelevant matters which occurred many years previously have been brought, quite properly, before the court. It is the propriety of this behaviour which disturbs me so greatly. The fact that people have convictions lies in the path of their emigrating. There are people who wish to take an honourable part in public life but, because there was a finding of guilt when they were children, there is always the possibility of their past being exposed hanging like the sword of Damocles above their long-since completely innocent heads.
Those who have committed driving offences are entitled after three years to go to the post office and obtain, with no difficulty, on payment of 20p, a clean

licence. If the offence were of driving under the influence of drink or drugs a person has to wait 10 years for the licence to be wiped clean. It is recognised as appropriate that a policeman looking at the licence shall not see that 10 years ago the person was convicted even of an offence involving drink. It is right and fair that drivers should be entitled to obtain a clean licence. It is equally right and fair that people should be entitled to obtain a clean licence for life when they have succeeded in going straight for a lengthy period.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that, while the licence might be clean, the drunken driving conviction remains on the record.

Mr. Janner: That is so. It may be that the legislation which I hope the Minister will say that the Government have in mind will contain an alternative proposal to enable the record to remain. A committee of lawyers has sat with the members and officers of the Howard League for Penal Reform and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gardner, to consider the problem. The Government might prefer a system which enables the records to remain on the file but makes it improper and unlawful for the records to be revealed or to be used against the offender. What appals me at present is that there is no prospect of any person who has managed to go straight remaining unworried and unanxious, away from the possibility of lawful blackmail by the revealing, justifiably and properly, of offences that occurred many years previously.
We all know the very great difficulty that decent people who have gone astray have in rehabilitating themselves. We all know that the dog with a bad name has a desperately difficult time. We all should know that if a person succeeds in spite of his bad name in establishing a good reputation, a civilised society should do something to protect him. Even if he has erred, forgiveness is a virtue which should be exercised.
I fully appreciate the difficulties of the police. I am not trying to increase them. I fully appreciate also that the letter


which I read indicates that a particular officer behaved in a tactless and thoughtless manner. That is not a condemnation of the force, or necessarily an argument for changing the entire law. It may be that this could be dealt with administratively. Have the police any instructions to avoid this sort of situation arising? If they have not, will the Minister undertake to consider whether such instructions ought now to be given to them?
I do not know the lad who wrote to me, or whether he will know of this debate. If he does, I hope that he will at least feel that consideration will be given to the situation he has described to prevent it from happening to others, and that, whether or not it is done by the law, we shall find out from the Minister whether the Government have some sort of change in mind.
After all, I believe that we are the only country in Europe, or at least the only one adhering to membership of the Council of Europe, which does not have such a law. It is nothing revolutionary. It exists in countries such as Germany, which is not necessarily renowned for having always had the most advanced and radical approach to crime. It exists in countries widespread throughout the world, including many of the States of the United States, and Canada and Belgium. I see no reason why we should not have some such-protection for people in this country.
My first question to the Minister concerns the Government's proposals. Are the Government prepared to wipe the slate clean? Do they not recognise the need for law reform? If so, what is being done to change the law?
My second question, in so far as results can be achieved immediately without a change in the law, is: what consideration is being given by the Government to such changes? In particular, will the Minister undertake to consider, with the police force, how to avoid the kind of utterly inhumane and unnecessary suffering caused to families by the revealing of ancient information concerning members of those families which need not have been revealed in order that police inquiries could be carried out satisfactorily?
In most courts, old, stale convictions are not taken into account when consider-

ing how to deal with a much later offence. When an offence which occurred 10 or 15 years previously is on the record, the court normally takes no note of it, and very often says so.
But the cruelties of this life are seldom committed by the courts. They are usually matters which result from the unhappiness of life. They result because records are too readily available, because there is too little privacy in the criminal records and because such records can easily be obtained.
I wish to pay tribute to those individuals and organisations concerned with the preparation of the document called "Living it Down: a Problem of Old Convictions" and to ask whether the Government have considered the recommendations made in it, and which are so concisely set out. First, is it accepted that there are about 1 million people who have a criminal record but have not been convicted again for at least 10 years? Secondly, is it accepted that the likelihood of any of these people being convicted again is minimal? Those are the two basic premises on which the recommendations are based. Thirdly, is it accepted that people with convictions are faced with great difficulties, especially in employment, insurance and in the courts, however exemplary their lives may have been for many years, and that malice or chance may at any time put an end to their rehabilitation?
Fourth, is it accepted that it is in the interests of all that when someone has done all he can to live down his past and enough time has passed to establish his sincerity, his record should no longer be held against him as long as he does not offend again? I appreciate the distinction between this question and the one raised by the bleak and simple statement on the Order Paper about wiping the slate clean in 10 years. Unfortunately, one cannot write a book, or even a pamphlet, on the Order Paper. This is the way in which I seek to air a desperately human problem and to inquire how one can deal with it. One solution put forward in "Living it Down" is that after 10 years, in all but the most serious cases, the record may remain but no one can produce it.
Is it accepted that the destroying or sealing of old criminal records would not


be desirable but that instead the law should, to quote from "Living it Down",
set an example by treating certain people as 'rehabilitated persons' when they have not been reconvicted for a number of years?
Is it accepted that it would be right to make evidence of their past crimes inadmissible, subject to safeguards? Is the premise on which the document is based accepted by the Minister of State, who is a man of great humanity? What consideration has been given to this problem, and what do the Government propose to do about it?
Is it accepted that the necessary conviction-free period should vary with the gravity of the offence? Having accepted, as is inevitable, the premise on which the conclusions and recommendations are based, what do the Government say about the recommendations? Is it not the right way to regard this matter that there should be a basic period which should vary according to the seriousness of the offence, in much the same way as driving licence offences are dealt with where the offences involve the endorsement of the licence so that the licence may be cleaned and the length of time which the driver must wait must depend on the seriousness of the offence for which the endorsement is required?.
Do the Government accept that evidence of all convictions should remain admissible whenever a rehabilitated person is convicted again on indictment or if he wishes to have it given? In other words, does the Minister accept that there should be a distinction between offences which are generally regarded as minor, and which can be dealt with summarily, and those which are more serious? How does he regard those offences?
Finally, and perhaps most important, are the Government prepared to make it an offence for anyone without authority to reveal the unhappy past of a person who may have been going straight for 20, 30 or 40 years? Most of us know people who have been convicted many long years ago and who have long since attempted to forget, and, in many cases have succeeded in forgetting, their past. But the records remain in a state in which they can be dredged up to bring unwarranted disrepute upon them and uncalled for and sad misery to their families and friends.
It is not the appropriate time to make a long and full case. However, I believe that it is right that the House should consider at any time the hardship suffered by many people.
The questions which I have asked are fair and reasonable. I trust that the Minister will agree. I accept that he cannot outline in a reply in this sort of debate the full area of policy. On the other hand, the questions which I have asked are specific and clear, and not only the House but the country is entitled to a reply.
The lack of civilisation implied by the law and practice as it stands is deplorable. I hope that it will not be long before no one will find it necessary to write a letter to any hon. Member complaining of the sort of situation which was shown by the letter from the boy who discovered, through an inquiry by the police of his father, that his father had committed a minor offence before the boy was born. That was an unnecessary matter.
I hope that the time will come when people who have not committed an offence for 15 years will be able to get insurance. I hope that the time will come when there will be, either through administrative or legal means, a way to remove the fingerprints of a person from the file, so that he will not be prevented from getting a job at the Post Office or anywhere else merely because he was going to be charged with an offence, even if no charge were finally brought.
I hope that the dangers of unfair publicity will be removed, as the report "Living it Down" suggests. The result will be that people will not be able to plead justification in court on the basis of stale convictions because they will not be entitled to bring such a record before a court.
I hope that at least this short debate will have enabled the House to consider a problem which is deeply worrying to so many people. I ask the Minister to treat the matter with seriousness and to attempt to reply for the sake not only of the lad who wrote to me, and of the many constituents who have spoken to me, but of all the millions of people who are directly or indirectly affected by the results of mistakes which were made many long years ago which should have been erased and forgotten.

7.35 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): By leave of the House, I will reply to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). I am grateful to him for the speech he made. I assure him that I do indeed consider this an important subject and fully appreciate the concern that he and many others have expressed from time to time on this issue. It is a difficult one. I am sure all of us are anxious to ensure that a person who at a previous stage has committed one perhaps isolated offence and who has then lived a perfectly honest and upright life should not be hampered all through his life by the publication or the fear of publication of his previous misdeed.
I accept that the existence of a criminal record can, and indeed clearly does, cause difficulty and embarrassment to individuals who are trying to go straight after an isolated criminal offence of some kind. On the other hand, I think, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman put on the Order Paper, that he himself in the end accepted that one cannot dispute the necessity to maintain records of criminal convicts. The Justice report, "Living it Down", itself recognised that criminal records
… should continue to be maintained and be accessible to those who really need them.
That is paragraph 71.
It went on to say that
the police … must … be able to find out whether any specified person has a criminal record, regardless of whether or not he has in the meantime rehabilitated himself.
That is paragraph 72. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal that all criminal records should be destroyed after a period of 10 years is, I think, a non-starter. Of course, the title of his debate does not say that.

Mr. Greville Janner: No, it does not. In fairness, the hon. and learned Gentleman should refer to the fact that I have drawn attention to the practice of the police in maintaining records of criminal convictions of more than 10 years' standing. It is the practice and the way it should be adapted which concerns me.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that it does not use the word "destroy", but the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that if what he is concerned about is the prac-

tice of maintaining records, the only way in which one cannot maintain them is in effect to destroy them. I am saying that I think the suggestion—which I am not saying he developed in the end—that the criminal records should not be available in any way whatever goes too far, is too sweeping, is unacceptable and, as I think he agrees, goes beyond what Justice proposed and what he himself is proposing.
I want to comment on the keeping of records at the moment. First, with regard to the letter the hon. and learned Gentleman read, of course one realises the distress and upset which must be caused when a previous conviction of a parent suddenly becomes known to a boy who had no idea that his father had ever been in trouble and where the offence was committed before the child was born. I would always be prepared to look at any individual's case which was brought to my attention where it was felt the police had improperly used knowledge of this kind.
There may be occasions where, although a person has only one previous conviction—for example, for a sexual offence—it is necessary to interview the individual because of the similarity of the traits of another offence many years later. It must be in the discretion of the police to interview those whom they consider it necessary to interview. I would be willing to call for any report from a chief constable in any case where it was felt that the use of a long-past conviction was being used unfairly in police investigations.

Mr. Janner: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that any person who comes forward with such a complaint would have it dealt with in complete privacy? Clearly that is the stumbling block. He would be loth to have the matter dragged forward and made public. Therefore, it is essential that the public should be assured that any such investigation would be carried on privately with the proviso that any police officer whose conduct is impugned must have the right to reply. The fact is that people such as this lad do not want their names or addresses given. That prolongs investigation of these complaints.

Mr. Carlisle: One must have certain details before one can investigate a complaint. It would be impossible to investigate a complaint unless the complainant


were willing to give the name and address and presumably to make a statement about the complaint. This would be treated in the same way as all other complaints, in that the report to the officer carrying out the inquiry into the complaint would be a privileged document to the chief constable, and would not be publicised.
The Home Office make it a rule that they never publish the report in an ordinary case of complaint. But, obviously, a statement would have to be taken from the individual for it to lead to any form of disciplinary hearing. In any event, the officer against whom the allegation was made would have to be seen.
The police have a system of weeding out stale convictions, but they do not do it after 10 years. All convictions for indictable and for some non-indictable offences are recorded on a national register or a regional register, and there is a standard procedure for eliminating the criminal records of those who are considered unlikely to come to the notice of the police again. I understand, for example, that it applies broadly speaking to all people 40 years of age or over who have not come to police notice for 20 years and who have been convicted only once and sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment or less. Their complete record is removed. Anybody over the age of 70 who has not come to the notice of the police for 10 years also has his records entirely removed. This procedure is now followed by most criminal record offices and is being, or will be introduced in regional offices where it is not the practice.
The hon. and learned Member was not quite accurate in what he said about fingerprints. Section 40 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, as extended by Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, provides that where a person not less than 14 years old is in custody charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment, on the application of a police officer not below the rank of inspector, the magistrates may order that his fingerprints be taken. However, Section 40(4) requires that if he is acquitted or if no charge is brought against him, all copies and records of fingerprints shall be destroyed. It is true that fingerprints taken with consent are not covered by the statutory provision of the Act, but, as a matter of normal police practice, they are in fact

destroyed if no conviction results from the proceedings. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that all police records are kept in circumstances of the greatest confidentiality and that we do all we can to ensure that that confidentiality is maintained.
From time to time, information on convictions is sent to certain bodies by the police. For a number of years, there have been arrangements under which the police are asked to bring to the notice of responsible professional and other bodies certain types of conviction of persons engaged in medicine, the law, the public service and the care of children. When this is done, it is because it is in the public interest. For example, it is in the interests of children themselves that the employers of those caring for them should be entitled to know whether such a person has a conviction for an offence involving a child.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), when Home Secretary, asked for a review to be made of the arrangements. That review is now in progress and my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary has said that he will make a statement when the review is complete. Before turning to the wider issue of "Living it Down", I should like to say that the Home Office is concerned about the possibility of people being highly embarrassed by the publication in a court of a stale conviction, as in the type of example that the hon. and learned Gentleman cited when a person charged with a parking offence suddenly hears it read out that assault or some minor form of larceny 25 years ago he committed an indecent about which no one else knew anything. We are concerned about that possibility and we are considering a circular to magistrates' courts to advise them about the types of offences that should be mentioned in this way. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows from experience that in the High Court that offence would probably never have been read out in open court.
I turn to the Justice report and the argument that there should be a period after which a man should be deemed to be rehabilitated and after which no reference should be made to his previous conviction. I have studied the proposal with


interest and I have had a long talk with the noble lord, Lord Gardner and Mr. Paul Sieghart, two of the authors of the report.
In principle I am attracted by the desire to do something to prevent an individual's being suddenly confronted by a stale conviction when, for instance, he comes forward as a witness, so that his past is dragged up although he had "lived it down". Personally, I am attracted by the idea that in some way that period should be tied to a sliding scale, so that the severity of the crime is recognised by the length of the period that would have to elapse before the man was deemed to have "lived it down". However, having studied with care the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Gardner proposes to introduce—a copy of which he was good enough to send to the Home Office for comment—I have had to tell him by letter that we see substantial practical difficulties in the proposals it contains.
I shall not go into detail now. At this hour, I think that it would not be of great value if I did, though I am quite willing to let the hon. and learned Gentleman know what some of the objections on practical points are. I shall take just two examples, to which he himself referred.
First, the person wishing to emigrate. The proposal that a conviction would not have to be announced in this country would have no force in the country to which the person was going. Therefore, far from avoiding difficulty, he might find that matters were considerably worse. If, in filling in the forms in this country, he relies on the proposal in the Justice report and does not disclose a conviction, but later that conviction somehow becomes known in the country to which he has gone, he may well be removed therefrom on the ground that he has come in on a false basis.
Second, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for my view about offences becoming relevant in later criminal cases only if they were of a major rather than a minor nature. With respect, that is not quite the proposal. The proposal is that records may be read out at trials on indictment but not in cases tried summarily. Thus, as I understand it,

the record of a person could be given to the court if he were tried on indictment but could not be given if he were committed for sentence. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman looking doubtful, but, with respect, I think that he will find that I am right about that.
Also, it means that in the case of summary conviction a man would be regarded as rehabilitated in respect of certain past offences which might be nearer in time to the conviction whereas in the case of conviction on indictment he would not be regarded as rehabilitated in respect of an offence which he had committed in the much more distant past. In this way the court might be given a totally misleading picture of what the man's previous record was.
Above that, however, I must point out that there are grave questions of principle, on which people must make up their own minds, whether the idea of the "legal lie" is appropriate. All I was concerned to do was to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gardner the practical difficulties, as we saw them from a Home Office point of view, in the proposals in the draft Bill which is published along with the Justice report.
We shall, of course, listen with care to anything that is said in any debate which takes place on the Bill in the other place. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the problem of the stale conviction. But I cannot at this stage say that the proposals in "Living it Down" would necessarily be acceptable to the Government as a method of dealing with it.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been good enough to indicate the Government's view. Will he add an assurance on one other matter? Plainly, the police must on occasion interview people even though their convictions are old. Will police officers be instructed not to conduct such interviews in the presence of the family of the person interviewed? Could that be considered? Could a circular go to police forces asking them that, when they interview people who have gone straight for a long time, they do not make their inquiries in front of the family?

Mr. Carlisle: Methods of investigation must always be a matter for chief officers


of police and the policemen serving under them. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is raising an unnecessary fear. I am sure the police are extremely careful to use tact in these matters. I would wish them to do so, but I cannot believe that there is any justification for a circular. I am sure that this is the sort of matter that chief constables and senior officers always bear in mind when making inquiries so that the inquiries they have to make are made in a way which does not cause undue or unnecessary embarrassment.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)

7.56 a.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: No one would disagree with the fact that unemployment in Scotland for many years now has been at an intolerably high level. The Scottish people have been asked to bear for far too long far too large a share of the misery and demoralisation and poverty which is associated with unemployment.
It has been a feature of our debates on the Scottish economy over the last few years for there to be a great deal of bitterness and recrimination on this side. This is understandable, partly because of the extreme nature of the problem but also because of the policies pursued by the Government during their first two years in office such as the removal of the investment grants and, above all, the whole philosophy of disengagement.
There has been a very sharp change in the Government's approach to industry. I do not wish to spend any time in this brief exchange going over the Government's record and hammering away at the statistics. We know that unemployment in Scotland is at an intolerably high level and that in recent years it has been at a particularly high level.
We may well be moving into a situation, although it is too early to be sure, where unemployment will fall. We have a very long way to go before it will be at an acceptable level. I am sure the Minister would not claim that the suggestion that unemployment may fall over the next few years is a reflection of the change in the regional policy. It is too early for that. If unemployment does

begin to fall over the next year or so in a reasonably significant manner it will be to some extent a reflection of the growth which we hope at long last will take place in the UK economy. To some extent it will also be a reflection of the developments associated with North Sea oil.
I should like to say one or two brief, and therefore perhaps superficial, things about the general situation in Scotland concerning regional development; and finally to say something about a specific aspect of Scottish regional policy which concerns us particularly in Edinburgh.
It is too early to assess the effect which the Industry Act will have on Scotland. The Industrial Development Executive and its officers, at least the regional officers, now have legislation and a framework whereby they could give assistance to Scottish industry on a scale greater than in the past. I hope this potential will be realised. There is one danger. Although the framework exists for intervening in this way, it may not be fully realised, because what matters is not what the legislation says or what the machinery is; what matters is how many new jobs are created as a result of this.
Do the Government believe that industry is now getting a faster service? Has the staff been increased at the DTI regional office to give this faster service? Will assistance be directed towards creating new jobs and when shall we obtain some tangible and significant new benefits from the Government's regional policy? I hope that we shall see substantial benefits.
In the White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development it was stated that the regional employment premium would be phased out from 1974. The rate and method of phasing out would be announced in due course in the light of circumstances at the time and after consultation with industry. I believe that it would be a great mistake for the REP to be reduced in 1974. Expressed as a percentage of a firm's payroll the value of the REP has fallen substantially since it was introduced in 1967. I believe that it could make an important contribution in enabling development areas to obtain a higher proportion of industrial expansion, and we need Quickly a clear statement from the Government that


REP will be increased. The Scottish Trade Union Congress has advocated that it should be doubled. I hope that the Government will do that.
I have always been attracted to the idea that the REP should be replaced by a system of payroll tax or a levy on all labour in congested expanding areas like the South-East of England. In the intermediate areas there might be a small, positive premium and in the development areas the full premium value could be paid, perhaps at the rate of £3 a head. That could be administratively difficult and the Government might turn it down for that reason.
It is worth recalling the views of Mr. Gilbert Hunt, Managing Director of Chrysler (UK) Ltd., when he submitted evidence to the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in October. He made a number of points, some of which I know the DTI in Scotland were unhappy about—but I think the Minister agrees with two of his observations. He said that if the Government wanted industry to move to certain areas the inducements for development must be sufficient to make the company want to go there using the normal financial criteria. He also criticised the switching of incentive policies and said that the Government should guarantee to companies that they would not lose benefits by one system being changed for another. That is another reason why I believe that it is tremendously important not to phase out the REP. These general regional inducements to industry are important and in an expanding United Kingdom economy they can make a real contribution to creating more jobs in Scotland but I believe that regional policy in Scotland at present should be primarily concerned with major specific economic developments.
Incentives alone will never remove Scotland's economic problems. The great change in recent years is that Scotland has two immensely valuable natural assets—the deep water facilities at Hunterston and North Sea oil—the economic potential of which is now appreciated. Many cogent things have been said about Hunterston by the Scottish Council, the Scottish CBI and the STUC in recent

weeks. I do not intend to repeat their arguments here. A major new development at Hunterston will come only as a result of a political decision by the Government. It is not true that the decision is that of the British Steel Corporation. Although everyone, including BSC officials, accepts the value of Hunterston, there are short-term narrow pressures to achieve commercial profitability which are against Hunterston.
It is not primarily the number of jobs in the proposed integrated steel works at Hunterston which is important but the fact that we must maintain a large and diversified steel industry in Scotland in the long term—so many of our industrial goods have a high steel content. A major new steel works in areas leads to other important industrial developments, as we know from our experience at Ravenscraig.
But the main natural asset which interests me is North Sea oil. We had a useful debate on this in the Scottish Grand Committee. If the development of North Sea oil were handled right, it could make a massive contribution over the next decade to solving Scotland's regional problems. Although we are concerned about energy and pollution aspects and about how long the oil will be there, the over-riding short-term issue is to see that the maximum number of jobs and industrial opportunities flow to Scotland.
It is true that we are now obtaining quite a number of exciting developments in Moray Firth and other parts of north and north-east Scotland. It is equally true that we are not getting a big enough share of this market, and we have heard it from Ministers on regular visits to these areas. The Prime Minister himself said that during the recess. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also said that they would get tougher with the oil companies and would see that more goods and services were obtained from Scotland. Thus, by their own admission, we are still not obtaining nearly enough from the supply of these goods and services, and that is to be expected.
I was impressed by the Brown and Root development when I visited the area in the recess. We now know enough to appreciate that North Sea oil is a major economic development, not just for


Scotland but for Europe. The Government should answer a number of questions so that they can be openly discussed. On the matter of rate of extraction, there is inevitably a conflict between getting the oil out as fast as possible and getting the maximum participation from Scottish and British industry. Government policy has been to get oil out as fast as possible. That is what the oil companies want.
However, there should be a reassessment because there may be a case for slowing the rate of extraction to obtain a bigger share of the market for our goods and services. We are entitled to an open statement of the Government attitude on this matter.
How are the Government going to monitor the use of goods and services by the oil companies? In discussing the monitoring and supply of goods and services we are talking of thousands of millions of £s in the years ahead and the Government have not spelt out how they will monitor accurately. It is a question of obtaining statistics on the use of services and equipment by oil companies and indicating the proportion of those goods and services which come from Scottish industry.
The licensing issue was dealt with at some length in our debate. The Government should explain why they are not prepared to allow any requirements for the purchase of Scottish or United Kingdom equipment in licensing. It is all very well to say that next time licensing takes place they will attach great significance to the amount of goods and services the companies have ordered in the past. Would this conflict with our international obligations? Let us have an open discussion on that, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) in the debate on Tuesday. It is this sort of principle: how we develop this issue, which we would have liked to have had discussed in a White Paper.
We shall have the annual report before the end of the year, but I suspect that it will concentrate on the present development and what is to occur in the near future and will not discuss objectively the basic questions which should be openly faced. For me the most important pub-

lication will be that of the IMEG report which we shall get before the end of the year. I am glad that the Government decided to employ the firm to carry out this important survey into the market for goods and services used in the exploration and development of North Sea oil.
May we have an assurance that when the report is published it will be the full report, the only exception being information removed solely because it happens to be confidential to companies concerned? We had a long argument in the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Docksey Report. Eventually we won, and Docksey was published. There will be a great deal of resentment if we have a very modified version of the IMEG report, with substantial parts removed on grounds other than confidentiality
But it is not so much the report itself that matters as the Government's reaction to it. I hope that they will respond in a positive interventionist way and accept responsibility to see that Scotland obtains the maximum benefit from the North Sea oil.
There is an over-riding case for the establishment of a separate agency to sponsor the development of industry in connection with North Sea oil. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) spelt out that aspect when he wound up for the Opposition in Tuesday's debate. Britain spends a colossal amount of R & D money on Concorde, and now on the computer industry. We should be prepared to give substantial financial support to industry so that it can gear up and acquire the expertise to make the maximum contribution to the North Sea oil industry quickly.
It is not just a question of support for some of the shipping firms on the East Coast, which surprisingly have been complaining about lack of business, although that is important in the short term. What is more important is that we want an oil board which will accept responsibility for creating the sophisticated technology which will be required to get the oil out from very deep waters.
Recently we read of Scottish investors buying a drill ship. Perhaps understandably, for commercial reasons, it has not been built in Britain. There are


many other types of sophisticated equipment for which British advanced technology could be created. It cannot be done overnight, but, given a board prepared to put in the same sums of money as were put into the aircraft and computer industries, we could have a successful industry, which, as the Secretary of State said on Tuesday, could then sell its goods and services to other areas where oil is being exploited.
I support the view that a substantial portion of the revenue from oil should go to the board. The board should develop not only those industries associated with North Sea oil, but should be given wider regional powers to enable it to develop other industries, too. I am not saying that it should be a purely Scottish board, but it should be based in Scotland. I should welcome the board's being able to invest some of the money on Teesside and elsewhere, but the bulk of the revenue should be invested in Scotland. That is where the headquarters would be.
I said at the beginning of my speech that in the time available I should be able to deal only briefly with some of the general aspects of regional policy, but there is one specific issue that I want to raise, and I have given the Minister notice of it.
We in Edinburgh have for a long time resented the fact that Edinburgh was not included in a development area in 1966. The Minister looks surprised. I assure him that a number of us in Edinburgh were unhappy about the 1966 decision. During the 1970 election campaign I made it clear that I did not believe that it was right to keep Edinburgh out of the development area and I promised that if I were elected—I expected a Labour Government to be returned to office—I would campaign for its inclusion in the development area. This is not a party issue. I think the Minister will agree that discrimination against Edinburgh has become almost a bipartisan policy, because we have now had 2½ years of this Government and there has been no acceptable change in the situation. They gave the Edinburgh and Portobello employment exchange areas intermediate status, and we gave it to Leith, but the fact is that Edinburgh is still being discriminated against.
Although some of us were unhappy about the position in 1966, a case could be made—and was made and accepted by many people in England, and in Scotland, too—that Edinburgh was much more prosperous than the rest of Scotland and that if new industries were coming to Scotland it was only reasonable that they should go to areas other than Edinburgh. But things have changed since then. In 1966, unemployment in Edinburgh was comparable with unemployment in Great Britain as a whole, and was very much lower than in Scotland generally. Since then unemployment—particularly male unemployment—has risen much faster there than in Britain and faster than in the rest of Scotland. These statistics have repeatedly been made available to the Government Departments concerned, and I do not want to go over them again. Suffice to say that in June 1967, 5·3 per cent. of the unemployed males in Scotland resided in the Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello employment exchange areas. By June 1972, that figure had risen to 7·4 per cent.
When the Hunt Committee looked at this it said—and it is worth reminding ourselves of this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that a moment ago he said that he was dealing with these matters very briefly. He has been speaking for nearly half an hour.

Mr. Strang: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I had not realised that I had taken so long.
The Hunt Report said that it was far too early to say whether this discrimination was having a serious effect upon Edinburgh. This has happened. An interesting map has been produced showing the precise sites of industry that has moved out of and into the area. Nearly all the industry that has been lost has been from within Edinburgh and all industry that has come in has come to areas outside Edinburgh. If the industry we had lost moved just outside Edinburgh we would not complain, but a large proportion of it has moved away from the area altogether.
The issue that is repeatedly brought up by industry is the denial of REP. Only last week a councillor told me that his publishing firm would leave if Edinburgh did not get development area status in


the near future. The Scottish Development Council has changed its view, and so has the Scottish TUC. They both accept our case, and there has been a big deputation recently from Edinburgh to the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We await the reply.
Will the Minister look again at this and, on the basis of the evidence that is available, make representations to the Department of Trade and Industry that this discrimination against Edinburgh must stop?

8.26 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for raising this subject, which is extremely important to all of us who live and work in Scotland. I will outline the regional development policy as it now is and comment on the points that he has raised.
Perhaps the most important single thing about the running of the Scottish economy is—and has been for some years—the carrying out of a successful and positive regional development policy. The aim of successive Governments has been to get the best possible system for encouraging investment and expansion in the development areas, and most of Scotland is a development area. Going with that positive regional development policy is the equally, and possibly more, important requirement to get the British economy as a whole expanding at a much better rate than it has in the past 15 to 20 years. Those two aims have overlaid the determination of the Government for the past 2½ years to devise policies which ensure that we have a much higher level of growth generally in the economy and, secondly, that we have a thoroughly effective regional development policy which encourages expansion of all kinds in the development areas.
There are now positive signs that we are making satisfactory progress on both counts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that we are achieving a rate of growth in the economy generally the like of which we have not seen for a considerable time. That in itself is a tremendous encouragement to all of us who work in Scotland. Secondly, the general package of our regional development incentives is now the best we have ever had, is as good as it is in any other country in

Western Europe and is probably better than in most of them.
None of these things alone will solve all our problems. But in those two areas we have made substantial progress and, if the economy continues to expand as it is doing now, we can look to the future with a measure of confidence that we in Scotland have not had for a long time. I am sure I carry the hon. Gentleman with me in saying that if this happened it would be very welcome to all of us.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is still too early to tell what will be the exact results of the new industrial development policy which was introduced in the Industry Act. Indeed, he was so right to say that, because it is, perhaps, too seldom appreciated by the public in general that changes of policy of this kind take a quite extraordinary length of time to take effect. Without trying to make any party point about this, perhaps I should add that any action that any Government take on this matter is bound to take about two years or more before one sees its effects working through the economy.
In all fairness, one has to see the intolerably high levels of unemployment of the last two years in the context of the policies we have been following, under successive Governments, for many years. No one would seriously contend that all of the blame for that high level of unemployment can be laid at the door of the present Government, because of the fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is the long time that these things take to work through.
We are now set on a course of very much more optimism and much greater prospects than we have had for some time. This is something which is very welcome. I shall not outline the details of the present incentives. There are only three features which I should like to emphasise.
First, the regional development grants that we now are able to offer are for the first time available on completely equal terms to both incoming industry and industry which is there already and wishes to expand. The old system was under considerable criticism because of the feeling that many of our indigenous industries were not getting equal treatment with industries which might come in from outside.
Secondly, the new grants are quite different from the old in that not only is there a rate of grant on buildings and plant and machinery of 20 per cent., and 22 per cent. in the special development areas, but these grants are no longer deducted from the value of the investment when tax allowances are included. That makes the total value to the company receiving a grant very much greater, and it relates the value to the profitability of the company. As that is where tax allowances come in, I have always felt it to be very important, and I think that industry in general feels it to be very important, too.
Thirdly, in the new arrangements we have at last succeeded in getting the dc-tailed administration of these grants and regional development policies very largely decentralised to the areas where the activity is taking place—in our case in Scotland. I am very glad that we now have the Scottish Industrial Development Office centred in Glasgow with its own staff. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has a proper staff of its own, who have been set aside to do this work under the Scottish industrial director, Mr. Denis Kirby, under the overall control of the controller of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is on the ground now in Glasgow and is swinging into its work very effectively. We also have the Scottish Industrial Development Board, which is able to take major decisions, and again, to take them in Scotland.
Apart from the largest industrial developments, which have a national significance because of their great size, this organisation situated in Glasgow has a very large measure of authority to spend money devolved to it. It is already clear that this is resulting in a much quicker, better and closer contact between Scottish industries and business people and the organisation which considers their applications for assistance.
It is too early to say how this will work in practice. However, it is certainly not too early to say that it has got off the ground very quickly, is now in business and working and that people are turning to it in Scotland. It is an important development which will be very much welcomed and it will be of great benefit to us for a long time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about regional employment premium, and I accept that there is concern about what is to happen when REP is phased out. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the precise position? When REP was originally introduced it was clearly stated then to be until 1974. The only undertaking given when it was introduced was that it would continue until 1974. We have confirmed that undertaking. It will go on until September 1974. We shall consider in what way it will be phased out after 1974. Therefore, Scottish industry and the rest of British industry receiving REP can be sure of getting it until 1974 and that will enable industrialists to plan ahead that far. There will not be an abrupt removal of REP. It will be phased out and we shall consult people about the proper means of phasing it out. The decision as to what should replace it must be taken a little nearer that time.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland's two great natural assets. I agree with the importance which he ascribed to them. I should like to make two points about the great natural asset of deep water, which has been occupying our attention for many years and which we all agree is of great importance to Scotland. The first is the purely temporary position that the decisions concerning steel development are very near to being made. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has given an undertaking that a decision will be announced before the end of the year. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate that decision.
The British Steel Corporation has made its plan known; it has presented it to the Government. The public and the hon. Gentleman and others know more or less what is in the plan from what has appeared in public announcements. Lord Melchett has been to Scotland and has mentioned some of its features. It is now with the Government who are considering it very urgently. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take very carefully into account all the many representations which have been made by organisations in Scotland which have made a most useful contribution to the debate on this subject. In particular, they will take into account


regional development considerations, as it is their duty to do.
Turning to the second point about deep waiter, I reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said on several occasions. There is no doubt that our duty to the Scottish economy is to ensure that this great natural asset is used for the maximum benefit of our economy. On the one hand, it is very important that we should not let this great natural resource go unused. On the other hand, it is equally important that we should not let it be used in a way which does not ensure that the maximum use is made of it. It would be a tragedy to fritter it away on enterprises or uses which did not bring the maximum benefit. My right hon. Friend has said that often, and I say it again.
The hon. Gentleman spoke most interestingly and deeply about the question of North Sea oil, which has occupied a great deal of my attention in the past two years. He is right in saying that it will make a massive contribution to the Scottish economy and to the solution of many of our problems. He said that it would do that over the next decade. I would make the time scale very much longer. We can look for at least 25 years of important and great benefit from North Sea oil.
The hon. Gentleman raised three particular points, all of which were very important. First, he wondered whether the rate of oil extraction was too fast. Matters of licensing policy and detailed oil industry policy are for my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry; it is for them to answer any detailed technical points. However, we keep in very close touch with one another on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), when speaking in the debate which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the Scottish Grand Committee earlier this week, described very well the considerations which have led us to follow the rate of extraction and licensing policies which we have followed.
It is open to any country—and Norway has started this policy—to operate the slow development of oil resources. But we do not think that that would be the right policy for this country now because we believe that the existence of these

resources leads us to ensure that we develop them as fast as we can in order to get the maximum benefit for our economy and our balance of payments. I do not think that we are going too fast.
I am certain that it has been of great benefit to us to have gone as fast as possible during the last few years. For the future, however, these policies must be kept continually under review. We cannot say now that it will always be right to go at any particular pace.
The hon. Gentleman asked about manufacturing contracts. I accept, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that it is necessary to keep an eye on the performance of Scottish industry in getting contracts and in exploiting North Sea oil and to ensure that the incoming companies bear this in mind. I do not think that it is open to us, or that it would be right for us, to go in for any compulsion on this point. We do not need to do so. We are not in a position where each industry cannot compete in getting contracts for oil rigs and so on. I believe that they are well able to do so and will become increasingly well able to do so. It would not be right for us to try to make a compulsory policy of that kind. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we should.
However, it is our duty to keep to the forefront of the minds of the incoming companies that we expect them to make as much contribution as they can to the local economy. All my contacts with the incoming companies, the oil companies and the other large companies which will help extract the oil have made it clear that they are most anxious to make as much use as they can of local industry. They are anxious to do so for financial reasons and for public relations reasons. They have all emphasised to me that from their point of view the more they can do locally the better.
It is the case that the incoming companies will at first have to get their specialised products from their traditional suppliers. But that does not mean that they will always want to do so. It is not surprising that this has taken a long time to get under way. Six months ago I was feeling that we were not getting enough response from Scottish industry in taking up these contracts. I do not think now


that this is anything like so much the case. There are welcome signs that Scottish industry is responding quickly and alertly to the new challenge. We shall keep the matter carefully under review. I am sure that we can ensure that the trend continues.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the writing in of requirements to license. This is a matter which would best be taken up with the Department of Trade and Industry. Licensing is a highly technical matter on which it has built up a lot of expertise. It would be worth the hon. Gentleman's while to take the matter up with the Department. I will draw their attention to what the hon. Gentleman said this morning.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a White Paper. I am sure that when the annual report, which the Government will produce, is published, he will find that it is much better in terms of value of information than a White Paper, which is inevitably restricted to a parliamentary context. A White Paper is inevitably restricted because the Government of the day have to relate what is in it to specific Government policies. It would be very difficult for a White Paper to contain the fullness of general commercial information about North Sea oil development which is now needed. I am sure that we shall find that the publication being produced is as good as or very much better than a White Paper.
I assure the hon. Gentleman about the IMEG report coming out. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave an assurance recently that the fullest possible information will be given in the publication of the report, with the only proviso that any matters genuinely affecting commercial confidentiality may have to be left out. I am glad to repeat that assurance. The hon. Gentleman outlined his views about the need for an oil board. I shall not go into that any more because it should be considered when we have the IMEG report before us.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Edinburgh's status in being excluded from development area status. I appreciate the many meetings with representatives of Edinburgh, which I have had about this and the feelings

there are in the city. So does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as did his predecessor, who had a meeting comparatively recently about it. All that was said then has been and is being taken into account. I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of this is overlooked. It is all being carefully considered.
I emphasise what the hon. Gentleman said about the original rather strange decision in 1967 to leave Edinburgh out of development area assistance. He said that he did not feel too happy about it. Nor did I. However, since then we have been able to raise its status to that of intermediate area, which means that it gets a 20 per cent. building grant, which it did not get before. I am glad that we have been able to raise Edinburgh from nothing to intermediate status. I accept that many people in Edinburgh are anxious to go the whole way to development area status and we shall take that very much into account.
I am glad that we have had the debate. It has been most valuable and has enabled us to look at the present policy of regional development. As I have said, we have every reason to feel that we have a package which is thoroughly effective and that where firms are mobile and expanding they have the strongest incentive to expand in development areas—a stronger incentive than in any previous system. The time is ripe for this system to be given a chance to work. I agree that it should not be chopped and changed, because that causes confusion. I believe that it will be successful. I think we shall see that the Industry Act and the new system will prove to be a major watershed in changing the continual trend of adverse economic forces in Scotland to one which will get us into a much more prosperous phase, with expansion coming not only to Britain as a whole but in particular to Scotland, something for which many of us have fought for a long time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

ROAD PROPOSALS (CONSULTATION)

8.48 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: When I made my application for an Adjournment debate I did so under the title of disclosure of motorway and principal road routes. This general question arises from the circumstances which have come to bear on the south-west corner of Northamptonshire in my constituency in connection with the proposed route of the M40, which is to link Southampton and Oxford through the Midlands to Birmingham. When it passes through Northamptonshire it is likely to affect the Aynho Ground agricultural area lying south of the village of that name. The route goes west of the village itself and also west of King's Sutton.
Both the Department and the Eastern Road Construction Unit have shown little regard for the public interest and requests for information, sheltering behind longstanding arrangements which date back to the mid-1930s.
My inquiries on the route started in March 1970 and I received a reply from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) in a letter dated 17th March of that year. This carried the admission that the study being undertaken
is naturally causing a good deal of speculation among the community, particularly where our Land Referencers have been making preliminary enquiries about land ownership and farm boundaries".
Some 18 months later my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in a letter dated 25th October 1971 said that it was hoped to be able to announce the Department's general intentions by the end of that year.
He went on to say,
I am vey conscious of the unsettling effects of delays".
Last July my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and I put down parliamentary Questions, the replies to which added nothing by way of further information, but in a letter to me dated

26th July last my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me that
every effort will be made to publish a preferred line for the motorway route as soon as possible in 1973".
In a subsequent letter of 14th November, however, my hon. Friend now tells me that
publication is unlikely to take place for another 12–15 months".
Uncertainty will therefore have hung over owners and occupiers for some four years.
In the same letter my hon. Friend says,
Given that we are working on a whole series of alternatives, we must, in order to avoid blighting the whole corridor, preserve confidentiality at this stage. Premature publication of an inevitably tentative series of proposals would have an indefensibly large blighting effect".
But in fact no blighting effect is in evidence except where planning applications are concerned, and I feel that to plead blight is merely a cover up for the Department which, despite enlightened planning procedures in other fields, has doggedly preserved for itself dictatorial methods for road proposals. I maintain that it is entirely unreasonable that local communities should be deliberately kept in the dark on important road proposals and denied any influence in the decision taking procedures.
I in no way challenge the necessity for the road, which is to form part of the motorway system for the country as a whole. This view is, however, not shared by the Oxfordshire branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England who have been consistently refused the criteria upon which the Department's plans are based. I have had confirmation of this from the Secretary, Mr. W. Drew, and Mrs. Angus Maude, who is the chairman, and wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The Northamptonshire branch, under the chairmanship of Captain G. H. Lowther and the presidency of Colonel Lancaster, the former Member for South Fylde, have similarly met a blank wall in their inquiries.
This attitude on behalf of the Department can be nothing more than a deliberate policy of denial of information which under existing arrangements faces local communities at the end of the day with a fait accompli and gives them


only limited time in which to make their objections to a draft scheme.
I am informed by Mr. Drew of the Oxfordshire CPRE that only six weeks has been allowed in which objections may be lodged to the draft scheme for that section of the M40 from Umberslade to Warwick and, further, that plans and photographs illustrating the scheme are to be on public exhibition on only two days. I cannot but agree with the branch when it says
it strongly suggests a complete indifference if not a contempt for public opinion".
A letter drawing much the same conclusions appeared in The Times over the signature of Mr. Paul Sieghart on 10th November referring to a six-lane motorway variously known as Ringway 3 or M16, a route with which his firm was concerned in a consultancy capacity. The purpose of his letter was the questioning of, as he put it,
the wisdom of preparing plans which would affect millions in a cosy conclave of central government officials who consult no one else except other officials from local authorities".
Mr. Sieghart had said in an earlier letter in The Times, on 26th September, that
when the secret decision is finally made public there is then little risk that any public inquiry will upset it since, even if the objectors can afford to call expert evidence, the experts will have had to do their work in the dark until the very last possible moment".
These are matters of increasing public concern. I quote from The Times leader of 27th November:
A duty should be laid on them to publish the results of surveys of alternatives as soon as they are completed. No interest which might be affected should be kept in ignorance of that fact. At no stage in the proceedings should the public be considered unfit to be told what is going on.
The Sunday Telegraph of 12th November observed,
The Department's rebuke to a Council in Essex for daring, to consult local people about the plans is arrogant and unpardonable".
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made an interim announcement which appears to indicate a change of policy and I welcome it. In a report in The Times on 15th November he is quoted as having said,
that he wished to consult with local authority associations on the possibility of giving the public earlier information about road-building schemes that may affect them

This will undoubtedly include the CCA which has not departed from the view it took two years ago in that it favoured in all cases the earliest possible publication of road proposals consistent with the need for their being sufficiently definitive to permit "reasonably accurate representation" on a map.
I hope, therefore, that this morning we shall have an acceptable announcement from my hon. Friend which will do much to meet the widespread and firm objections to existing arrangements. Would my hon. Friend also deal with the question of availability of technical information upon which justification for new principle motorway routes rests, and may the House have his assurance that in future adequate information in every respect will be made available so that responsible objectors may have an opportunity of making their own assessment of Government proposals? In other words, I am asking that the Department shall be required to justify the need for a highway and the route proposed.
This information should be made available at an early stage. Having been got together at the public expense, there can be no reason for its sole use by the Department and being denied to objectors. It is also right that it should be open to challenge.
I turn briefly to the situation in the south-west corner of Northamptonshire where local residents are desperately concerned about the effects of a motorway through this delightful part of the county. For those who must, of necessity, be disturbed, I very much welcome the widened terms of compensation provided by the Land Compensation Bill which started its Committee stage on Tuesday. However, the sacrifice for those involved may in some cases be beyond price and this may well be so for some residents in Wales Street, Kings Sutton, who are apprehensive that the route will lie between the western edge of the village and the Cherwell River and railway.
The village as a whole would suffer untold damage if this were to be the case. The low-lying ground would require the highway to be raised on an embankment. The village is downwind and would be grievously affected by noise.
Little regard seems to have been had for local opinion with the singular exception of the Permanent Secretary, Sir James Jones, who wrote to Mrs. Coxon, a resident in Wales Street, on 18th October:
We will not adopt the line between the village and the railway unless we feel that there are compelling reasons for doing so ".
Mrs. Coxon was responsible for organising a petition addressed to me, containing the names of no fewer than 708 residents, which is in the following terms:
In view of the announcement by the Department of the Environment that the extension of the M40 motorway will follow a route close to Kings Sutton, we entreat you to obtain an assurance from the Minister that this motorway will not come within half a mile of the village.
I wish to hand this text to my hon. Friend, together with letters from 13 families living in Wales Street. I hope that the House will hear from my hon. Friend that the recommended route is one that will not lead to an unacceptable impact on residents and the amenities of the countryside.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: I never repeat what others have said, and on this occasion I find it particularly easy to stick to that rule because, with the change of a few names of villages, rivers and so on, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) expressed precisely the concern which faces me in my constituency. There has been more argument and concern as a result of the road proposals which have so far been made than I have experienced at any time in the 14 years I have been a Member of Parliament.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, apart from not wanting to have a new road through their own back yard, many people are concerned about the necessity of having a motor road at all. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I urge my hon. Friend that, when the time comes—I hope it will be soon—he should make out a case for the building of a new road, because so many people believe that these roads are not necessary today.
Will my hon. Friend, please, do something quickly? The problem of blight is already serious in my constituency,

and it is only reasonable and fair that those who are closely involved should have some proper information at a very early date.

9.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) for raising a most important subject. Serious considerations have to be taken into account in the whole question of planning not only motorways but new roads generally.
We have made a number of improvements to the arrangements for publicising road proposals. Following the Highways Act 1971, the Department now gives much wider and more informative publicity at publication stage. The statement explaining the proposals goes into greater detail about the reasons for them, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South will appreciate when he has looked at the statements which come out at this stage. The statement describes in general terms the alternatives which have been considered, and gives the reasons for their rejection, but in such a way as to avoid blight. Additional public meetings and displays also are arranged at which the public may ask questions and discuss proposals. If an objector wishes to work up an alternative, the Department gives what factual information it has on any similar routes which have been investigated.
I assure my hon. Friends that it is my intention that we should be as helpful as we possibly can in the giving of this information. In the light of one or two things which I shall announce in a moment or two, I certainly give that undertaking.
Only this week, we published a booklet on what is known as "COBA", that is, cost-benefit analysis of road schemes, as a new arrangement to explain to people how the Department goes about making an economic assessment of road proposals. I have a copy of the booklet here. It is written in, I hope, language which is easy to understand, and it is a further part of the process of involving people so that they may understand when one talks about various economic rates of return and so on. We want people to understand what


this whole business is about. I hope that the booklet will gain a wide circulation among those of the constituents of my hon. Friends who are affected by road schemes.
It is very understandable that people who believe that their homes may be affected by a new road, or who have a general interest in the area through which it may run, want to express their views on the line it should take early enough for them to be taken into account by the Department in formulating its proposals. The improvements to which I have referred, arising out of the 1971 Act, go some way towards meeting this point. But there is clearly a strong feeling—my hon. Friend has expressed it—that this is not early enough and that, by the time the proposals are published, the die is already cast.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries are very understanding of that view, and I am certainly am, too. Our policy so far has been to consult local authorities in confidence, both as representing local interests and as planning and highway authorities, before the Secretary of State decides what line to publish as his preferred route. It is after publication that the opportunity for full public discussion arises, and I assure the House that all the views expressed are fully taken into account before a final decision is made.
Doubts have nevertheless been expressed, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that this procedure does not suffice to give people the assurance that the views of those affected by proposals are properly represented and taken into account at an early enough stage.
The alternative would be to publish information on possible lines for public discussion at a much earlier stage than at present, but this could bring its problems. The publishing of proposals for a single line for a road has a blighting effect which makes it difficult or impossible for people who own houses in the line of the road to sell them at a fair price should they want to move. Publishing several alternatives might greatly extend this effect, possibly more than proportionately to the number of alterna-

tives, because an important factor in our choice of preferred line is the number of dwellings to be destroyed.
There would also be a period of anxiety for many people who have no desire to move, or to have a new road running near them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said. For all except those on the route eventually adopted, this anxiety can often be largely avoided under the present system. I understand the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Besides the blight and anxiety there is the fact that additional consultation procedures will undoubtedly delay the construction of new roads. It is easy enough to say that a few months longer in preparation is worth it if it means a greater chance of getting the best solution, but it must not be forgotten that years of work already go into the preparation of road schemes, which bring with them much-needed benefits for the community, for example in the provision of bypasses and modern roads suitable for heavy lorry traffic. Throughout this period a very genuine effort is already made to achieve a solution which pays proper attention to personal and environmental factors as well as to the complex engineering problems which are often involved. An earnest of the Government's determination to attach even more importance to this aspect is given by its acceptance of the Urban Motorway Committee's report and by the new powers and duties embodied in the Land Compensation Bill now before Parliament.
I do not make these points in order to argue that there is no case for any changes but in order to demonstrate that there are very real and, I believe, reputable reasons in favour of the present system.
I must say to my hon. Friend that people have claimed and alleged—I hope that he was not one of them this morning—that the present system is one in which arrogant officials ruthlessly proceed regardless of the views of those most affected. The public interest does pull both ways in all these schemes.
I should like at this point to emphasise the importance that we attach to public inquiries. They frequently have a substantial effect on our proposals for the


alignment of new roads or for the improvement of an existing road. Let me give just two recent examples of substantial modifications of our proposals in the light of public inquiries, and there are many others. One is the A64 Tad-caster bypass, where we announced in October that we are re-examining the route for the eastern half with the object of reducing the effect on residential property along its length. Another smaller example, but an important one, is the change in our proposals for strengthening Magdalene Bridge in Cambridge. Our original proposals for replacement of the decorated cast-iron bridge, which is a listed structure, by a concrete bridge were, as a result of the inspector's recommendations, reconsidered, and we have now agreed to the preservation of the existing bridge with a suitably reinforced internal structure.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am glad to hear those examples given. Has the Department any views upon recompensing those objectors who employ expensive counsel to oppose his departmental experts in respect of the legal fees which they incur?

Mr. Speed: The situation is that if people objecting at an inquiry in this way do obtain a substantial change in the proposals for their own individual properties, then my understanding is that they can have certain expenditure reimbursed. As a general rule at the moment expenses are not given to them. Costs are not awarded against objectors. I think that this is a slightly different matter. If I may proceed, some of the things I shall say will help my hon. Friend. I know of his anxieties.
These two examples show that we are prepared to change our proposals in the light of views expressed at a public inquiry, even when this involves additional cost, as both these schemes will. But I recognise the very genuine nature of the concern that has been expressed today and I believe it is right that we should examine very carefully how the procedures might be changed so that the public can participate in discussions on the line of the route, and that their views can be fully understood and taken into account in choosing which line should be developed in detail up to the stage at which the Department currently pub-

lishes its proposals in the form of a draft statutory instrument.
Any new procedures would have to be devised very carefully so as to ensure effective consultation and participation while at the same time keeping to a minimum the adverse effects of blight, anxiety and delay. But my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that a change in our procedure must be made and, subject to the outcome of further studies, he intends to publish his proposals in a consultation paper in about a month's time and then to allow a period for comment and discussion—and I hope a fairly short period.
This would ensure that the question of earlier consultation itself could be the subject of proper public participation, and that the, to some extent, conflicting interests involved could be fully ventilated and properly reconciled. My right hon. and learned Friend is anxious that any new arrangements should not lead to rigid and formal procedures. It is important to ensure that there is positive local discussion of road proposals and that ordinary members of the public are not discouraged from participation in such discussion by undue formality in procedural arrangements.
So far I have dealt with the general issues involved in public participation in the early stages of road planning. I hope that I have said enough to show that action will be taken, and very soon. I shall now turn to their application in the case of the M40 Oxford—Birmingham motorway about which I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly drawing attention. My hon. Friend has spoken of the anxieties of his constituents in South Northamptonshire about proposals being developed for the Waterstock-Warwick section of the intended extension of the M40.
As for the northern section, I gave a parliamentary Answer earlier today to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) in which I said that there will be a public inquiry into this section in mid-summer and that the Department is quite prepared to receive objections up to the date of the inquiry. People may attend the inquiry without having objected previously, so that this will mean about six to eight months for objections.
I hope that will in some part meet the points raised by my hon. Friends.
There was an announcement in April 1968 of a feasibility study to confirm the need for the new motorway. This made it clear that the main purposes of the new road were to provide a relief for the congestion likely to develop over the years on the M1 and also to relieve existing roads in the corridor between Oxford and the West Midlands. The study was also to give a broad determination of the best alignment. The results of the study were announced in July of this year when the scheme was taken into the trunk road preparation pool and a corridor east of Banbury and west of Leamington and Warwick was indicated. The announcement mentioned that a number of possible corridors had been considered, as well as the possibility of improving existing roads, but had been rejected in favour of a new road in a corridor starting well to the east of Cherwell Valley. This must have relieved the anxieties of residents in those areas although naturally intensifying those of residents within the broad corridor indicated.
Under current procedures the Department is now working on the preparation of proposals, for publication as a draft statutory order, for an exact line within the selected corridor. The House will appreciate that work on this and on other schemes at a similar stage must proceed and that decisions already taken must be acted upon, as there would otherwise be an intolerable hiatus in work on the road programme while the possibility of changed procedures is under discussion. It will, however, take several months of work before a draft scheme for the M40 could be prepared. Therefore if our new arrangements are ready in time, I would like to try them out as an experiment in the case of this section of the M40. This will probably be the first scheme on which we can try these proposals for early consultation of the public.
Meanwhile I should like to stress that on M40, as with all schemes dealt with under current procedures, no irrevocable decisions are being taken in advance of publication of proposals. Irrespective of any new consultation procedures, all objections and representations made to

the published statutory proposals, together with the report of any inquiry which may be held, will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend before he reaches any decision on this road.
I may add that at present the Department is still at the stage of examining alternative alignments. As an example of this, in the area of King's Sutton about which my hon. Friend wrote to me some months ago possible lines east and west of the railway and river are now being investigated. I hope it will be possible to explore these things more fully under the new arrangements,
I have, of course, confined myself to comments about trunk roads. Proposals for other roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities. We are particularly anxious that the views of local authorities should be taken into account in developing any new procedures and we are making special arrangements to consult the local authority associations.
My hon. Friend referred to my statement, reported in the Press.
There is one other aspect which I should like to mention in this context because I attach particular importance to it—that is, the advice available to people attending public inquiries.
The Department has now produced two helpful leaflets, one dealing with various aspects of the individual's rights when he is affected by a new trunk road proposal, and the other with compulsory purchase by the Secretary of State of property needed for trunk road schemes. It has seemed to me for some time that these could usefully be complemented by a guide to the procedure at public inquiries.
Inspectors generally go out of their way to explain the procedure and to put people at their ease, but I believe that there is a need to provide the man in the street with a leaflet which explains to him in simple language just what an inquiry is all about, what his rights are and how he can best present his case. Such a guide is being prepared. It might help to remove the rather awe-inspiring, court-room image which a public inquiry seems to have in many people's minds.
I hope I have said enough to show that we want participation to mean


something here, and not be just a word that is bandied about. The Government are concerned that people should be aware of their rights and have an opportunity of influencing decisions which may affect them very considerably. I think

that all the developments to which I have referred reflect that concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Nine o'clock a.m.